Innovation Law Insights

Legal Break

What’s new in the Digital Omnibus?

In this episode of Legal Break, Alessandro Ferrari from DLA Piper takes a closer look at the Digital Omnibus and the main changes and simplification measures it introduces. Watch the episode here.

 

Privacy and cybersecurity

EDPS prior consent and the protection of personal data in EU institutions: Analysing Decision 2026/199

Decision 2026/199 of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) was adopted on 16 January 2026 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 January 2026. It’s a significant regulatory intervention in the field of personal data protection in the EU institutions, bodies and agencies.

The Decision regulates the application of the EDPS’s prior consent as an indispensable condition for removing Data Protection Officers (DPOs) from office, strengthening the safeguard function and independence of officers.

The applicable legal framework is Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, which governs the processing of personal data by EU institutions, bodies and agencies and explicitly provides for the designation of a DPO for each institution.

The Regulation enshrines the principle that the DPO must be able to perform their tasks with autonomy and independence, without being subject to pressures or influences that could affect the effective protection of data subjects’ rights. In this context, Decision 2026/199 clarifies the procedural requirements that institutions and bodies have to observe whenever they intend to proceed with removing a DPO, establishing a binding obligation to obtain the prior consent of the EDPS.

The procedure set out in the Decision requires institutions to send the EDPS a formal request, accompanied by all information necessary to allow for a complete and reasonable assessment. The information includes the grounds for the proposed removal, documentation relating to the operational context of the DPO, the remaining duration of the mandate, and any potential impact on personal data supervisory functions.

In examining the request, the EDPS can request further information from both the institution concerned and the DPO, to obtain all elements necessary for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation. The EDPS assesses whether the removal is supported by objective, proportionate and documented reasons, ensuring that the action doesn’t compromise the independence of the DPO or prejudice the effectiveness of data protection in the institution. Prior consent serves as an essential safeguard, preventing arbitrary removals or removals motivated by considerations unrelated to personal data protection.

The Decision further identifies the conditions under which the EDPS can grant or refuse consent. The supervisory authority considers the validity of the reasons advanced, the compliance of the internal procedure followed by the institution, the protection of the fundamental rights of the data subject, and the consistency of the action with the principles of transparency and impartiality. Where justified reasons exist, the EDPS may grant consent to the removal. In the absence of such conditions, consent is refused, rendering it impossible to revoke the DPO until the prescribed requirements are fulfilled. This mechanism consolidates the protection of the independence of DPOs, ensuring that the EU’s institutions cannot exercise discretionary influence over the supervisory figure responsible for overseeing personal data processing.

Decision 2026/199 assumes exemplary significance for the internal governance of the EU: the obligation of the EDPS’s prior consent minimises discretion in exercising administrative prerogatives and guarantees that the protection of personal data isn’t subordinated to contingent political or organisational logics.

The Decision helps consolidate an effective internal control system that ensures the proper management of sensitive information and respect for the fundamental rights of data subjects. It doesn’t merely define formal procedures, but substantively strengthens institutional oversight and accountability mechanisms, elevating standards of personal data protection and ensuring that institutions operate in full compliance with the principles of transparency, impartiality and continuity in the safeguarding of citizens’ rights.

Author: Giovanni Chieco

 

Intellectual Property

Figurative trademarks and the limits of protection: Registered signs as the sole point of comparison

With its judgment of 21 January 2026 in Case T-43/25, the General Court of the European Union has once again clarified the boundaries of protection afforded to figurative trademarks composed of simple and abstract graphic elements. The decision reaffirms a fundamental principle of EU trademark law: the assessment of similarity must be carried out solely on the basis of the sign as registered, without regard to hypothetical modes of use or variable orientations on the goods.

The dispute arose between Puma SE and the Chinese company Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management, following the latter’s application to register an EU figurative trademark covering goods in Class 25, including clothing and footwear.

The background to the dispute

The contested sign consists of a curved white stripe, combined with an inverted irregular triangle, all set on a black rectangular background. Puma filed an opposition relying on three earlier EU figurative trademarks, each characterised by white curved stripes slanting upwards and gradually tapering, which the applicant argued formed a core element of its long-established visual identity.

The EUIPO, both at first instance and on appeal, rejected the opposition, finding that − despite the identity of the goods −the signs were visually dissimilar. That assessment was subsequently upheld in full by the General Court.

Puma’s arguments and the role of orientation

Before the General Court, Puma contended that consumers in the sportswear sector are accustomed to stripe-based branding and are unlikely to perceive subtle differences between signs composed of similar graphic elements.

Puma also argued that the analysis should take into account reasonably foreseeable forms of use. In the absence of a “natural” orientation – unlike, for instance, figurative marks depicting animals or recognizable objects – abstract signs can be applied to products in different positions or even rotated. According to the applicant, this created a tangible risk that the contested sign could be perceived in an orientation increasing its visual proximity to Puma’s earlier marks. A similar argument was advanced with respect to the black background of the applied-for mark, which might become less perceptible on dark garments.

The General Court’s reasoning: Only the registered sign matters

The General Court firmly rejected those submissions. It held that the comparison between signs must be conducted exclusively on the basis of their graphic representation as filed, and that speculative considerations relating to potential rotation, placement or real-world presentation fall outside the scope of the likelihood-of-confusion analysis in opposition proceedings.

From a visual standpoint, the court identified structural differences. Puma’s earlier marks convey an overall impression of fluid, continuous movement, with an ascending and progressively narrowing shape. By contrast, the contested sign appears distinctly angular and segmented, featuring a stripe of variable thickness that widens towards the right. The reversal of the curve, combined with the presence of the irregular triangular element, produces an autonomous geometric configuration that an average consumer – despite having an imperfect recollection – would readily distinguish.

As regards the black background, the court emphasized that it constitutes an integral element of the sign and cannot be disregarded on the basis of conjecture as to its visibility in certain contexts. As consistently held in EU case law, the manner in which a mark is actually used isn’t a relevant factor in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion and may, at most, be addressed in the context of infringement proceedings.

Concluding remarks

By dismissing Puma’s action in its entirety, the General Court further consolidated a well-established line of authority delimiting the scope of protection available to abstract figurative trademarks. In the absence of visual similarity, and where no phonetic or conceptual elements exist, the identity of the goods and the reputation of the earlier mark cannot compensate for the lack of similarity between the signs themselves.

The judgment reinforces a delicate but essential balance: safeguarding trademark rights without allowing trademark law to evolve into a mechanism for monopolizing basic design concepts, which are particularly prevalent in the fashion and sportswear industries. Protection, the court confirms, attaches to the sign as registered, not to every conceivable variation of stripes or geometric forms.

Author: Maria Vittoria Pessina

 

Intellectual Property

New gTLD Program 2026: What’s changing for companies and institutions

More than a decade after the first round, ICANN is reopening applications for new generic Top-Level Domains. With the launch scheduled for April 2026, this is an opportunity not only for large corporations, but also territorial entities, trade associations, and organisations seeking to build a distinctive digital presence.

The New gTLD Program 2026 allows companies to register customized extensions beyond the classic .com or .it. We’re talking about extensions like .fashion, .wine, or your company’s brand. In the first round of 2012, Italy saw participation from entities such as .roma, .milano, and .lamborghini.

The 2026 round features clearer rules and simplified procedures, the result of accumulated experience. Understanding the regulatory framework is essential to properly evaluate this opportunity.

Application requirements: Technical and financial aspects

ICANN evaluates three fundamental aspects in applications:

Technical capability: applicants have to demonstrate the ability to manage a DNS registry in compliance with international standards. Many rely on specialized backend operators to provide the necessary infrastructure.

Financial soundness: economic guarantees are required to cover not only the launch, but ongoing management for years. Business plans must be realistic and documented, with projections demonstrating the project’s sustainability.

Regulatory compliance: registration policies must meet ICANN requirements regarding data protection, dispute resolution, and protection of third-party rights.

The total investment goes well beyond application fees, including technical, legal, and ongoing operational management costs.

Trademark protection: The Trademark Clearinghouse

The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is the primary protection tool for registered trademark holders. By registering their distinctive signs in the database, they acquire priority rights during sunrise periods of new gTLDs.

How the Trademark Clearinghouse works

The TMCH operates as a centralized registry where trademark holders can validate and protect their rights on a global scale. Once a trademark is registered in the TMCH, it benefits from:

• Sunrise period: ability to register domains corresponding to a trademark before the gTLD’s general availability.
• Claims service: automatic notifications when someone attempts to register a domain identical or similar to the protected trademark.
• Ongoing protection: registration validity for all new gTLDs that will be launched, not just for a specific one.

Registration in the TMCH requires submission of documentation proving the trademark’s existence and validity, including registration certificates from national or international trademark offices. Trademarks must be registered and cannot simply be pending applications.

UDRP and URS: Post-registration protection tools

The UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) and URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) procedures offer mechanisms to combat cybersquatting. Those submitting applications for strings that evoke others’ trademarks should expect formal objections, manageable but costly in terms of time and resources.

Preventive registration in the Trademark Clearinghouse enables proactive trademark protection before new gTLDs are launched. This is an essential tool for those wanting to protect their brand in the digital ecosystem, particularly important considering that the 2026 round could lead to the launch of hundreds of new extensions.

Managing disputes and application conflicts

When multiple parties request the same string, contention resolution mechanisms are activated. In 2012, many disputes were resolved through private agreements before the final auction. Direct negotiation often remains the most economical and effective route.

Formal objections may be based on:

• conflict with intellectual property rights
• violation of public policy norms
• confusion with other strings

Each objection follows specific procedures before expert panels, with timelines that can exceed one year. Preparing an adequate defensive strategy from the initial phase can make the difference between application success and failure.

When does it make sense to apply

A gTLD can represent a strategic investment for:

• international brands seeking total control of their digital space
• territorial entities interested in digitalization and promotion
• industry associations wanting to create certified communities
• niche operators with defined markets and clear strategy

Preparation and timeline

With applications scheduled to open in April 2026, time to prepare is limited. Those interested should:

• Begin preliminary assessments immediately: identify the desired string, verify potential conflicts, evaluate economic feasibility.
• Register trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse: to ensure immediate protection and priority rights.
• Engage multidisciplinary teams: legal, technical, and financial expertise are all essential.
• Analyse potential conflicts with existing trademarks and other predictable applications.
• Develop realistic long-term business plans with detailed projections.

The process’s complexity requires a structured approach that considers all aspects of the operation, from technical requirements to long-term legal implications. Considering that preparing a complete application can take several months, starting assessments now is fundamental to arrive prepared at the opening.

Final considerations

The New gTLD Program 2026 is a concrete opportunity for those with clear strategic objectives and adequate resources. The regulatory framework is more mature compared to 2012, but the operation’s complexity remains high.

Experience accumulated over these years shows that success requires strategic vision, financial soundness, and ability to navigate an articulated regulatory framework. For those able to face this challenge with proper preparation, the benefits can be significant in terms of brand protection, digital space control, and building dedicated communities.

The window to prepare is closing: with the opening scheduled for April 2026, now’s the time to concretely evaluate this opportunity and, if appropriate, begin the application process with the right support and strategy.

Author: Maria Rita Cormaci

 

Technology

AGCom Communication Markets Monitoring System for the first nine months of 2025

The Italian Communications Authority (AGCom) has published the Communications Monitoring Report No. 4/2025, containing data for the first nine months of 2025.

The data included in the Communications Monitoring Report reveal that the total number of direct fixed-line networks at the end of September 2025 didn’t register any substantial change, remaining at 20.49 million lines. On a quarterly basis, a decrease of 52,000 accesses was recorded. Compared with the corresponding period of 2024, an increase quantifiable at 21,000 accesses was observed (equal to 0.1% more than in September 2024).

AGCom also notes that copper-based lines have decreased by approximately 150,000 units on a quarterly basis and by 640,000 compared to September 2024. Over the past four years, the decrease amounts to just over 3.4 million units.

Compared to lines based on more advanced technologies, quarterly increases were observed, although the values show a decline compared to last year. Indeed, broadband lines are estimated to total around 19.26 million as of September 2025, with a quarterly increase of approximately 22,000 accesses and an annual decrease amounting to 160,000 accesses.

FTTC (Fiber To The Cabinet) accesses at the end of September 2025 totalled 8.52 million, showing a decrease of 778,000 lines, an 8.4% drop compared to September 2024. FTTH (Fiber To The Home) accesses, totalling 6.74 million in September 2025, increased by over 240,000 units on a quarterly basis and by 1.22 million compared to the same period in 2024, while compared to September 2021 the increase amounts to just over 4.2 million lines. Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) lines also increased (by approximately 264,000 units annually), reaching about 2.56 million accesses at the end of September 2025.

This trend indicates a significant improvement in connection speeds. Between September 2021 and September 2025 the share of lines with speeds of 100 Mbit/s or higher rose from 59.2% to 81.8% of the total. Over the same period, the share of lines offering transmission speeds of 1 Gbit/s or higher increased from 11.5% to 32.4% of the total.

The data from the Communications Markets Monitoring System confirm the continued increase in data consumption. The average daily traffic in terms of total volume for the period from January to September 2025 grew by 7.8% compared to the first nine months of 2024 and by 49% compared to 2021. These figures are reflected in daily broadband traffic per line: unit consumption has increased by 44.4% compared to 2021, rising from 6.81 GB to 9.83 GB per line on average per day.

With regard to the mobile network segment, AGCom reports that the total number of active SIMs at the end of September 2025 (including “human” SIMs, ie “voice only”, “voice+data”, and “data only” that involve human interaction, and M2M, ie “machine-to-machine”) is estimated to be slightly above 110 million, increasing by 1,908,000 units annually. Specifically, M2M SIMs grew by 852,000 units annually, totalling 31.3 million. Human SIMs, totalling 79.3 million by September 2025, saw an increase of 1,056,000 units compared to the same period in 2024. According to AGCom, 14.6% of human SIMs in September 2025 were business SIMs, while the remaining 85.4% were intended for residential customers.

According to AGCom, about 61.3 million human SIMs generated data traffic during the first nine months of 2025. These figures show that mobile data traffic continues to grow. Traffic recorded in September 2025 increased by 14.5% compared to the same period in 2024 and by over 113% compared to 2021. Correspondingly, the average daily unit consumption in the first half of the year is estimated to be around 0.98 GB.

Authors: Massimo D’Andrea, Matilde Losa, Arianna Porretti

 

---

Innovation Law Insights is compiled by DLA Piper lawyers, coordinated by Edoardo Bardelli, Carolina Battistella, Noemi Canova, Gabriele Cattaneo, Giovanni Chieco, Maria Rita Cormaci, Camila Crisci, Cristina Criscuoli, Tamara D’Angeli, Chiara D’Onofrio, Federico Maria Di Vizio, Enila Elezi, Laura Gastaldi, Vincenzo Giuffré, Nicola Landolfi, Giacomo Lusardi, Valentina Mazza, Lara Mastrangelo, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Giulio Napolitano, Andrea Pantaleo, Deborah Paracchini, Maria Vittoria Pessina, Tommaso Ricci, Marianna Riedo, Rebecca Rossi, Roxana Smeria, Massimiliano Tiberio, Federico Toscani, Giulia Zappaterra.

Articles concerning Telecommunications are curated by Massimo D’Andrea, Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa and Arianna Porretti.

For further information on the topics covered, please contact the partners Giulio Coraggio, Marco de Morpurgo, Gualtiero Dragotti, Alessandro Ferrari, Roberto Valenti, Elena Varese, Alessandro Boso Caretta, Ginevra Righini.

Learn about Prisca AI Compliance, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to assess the maturity of AI systems against key regulations and technical standards here.

You can learn more about “Transfer”, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to support companies in evaluating data transfers out of the EEA (TIA) here, and check out a DLA Piper publication outlining Gambling regulation here, as well as Diritto Intelligente, a monthly magazine dedicated to AI, here.

If you no longer wish to receive Innovation Law Insights or would like to subscribe, please email Silvia Molignani.