Jurisdiction in cross-border disputes concerning unfair competition
21 Apr 2026
Court of Milan, 6 October 2025
The Court of Milan has recently addressed the issue of jurisdiction applicable to cross-border disputes concerning unfair competition.
In the case at issue, the Italian holding company of a multinational group, owner of the trademarks and intellectual property assets used by its group’s companies, brought an action against two of its former employees of French nationality, alleging that they had engaged in acts of unfair competition and seeking damages. Specifically, the claimant argued that the former employees had misappropriated confidential information and diverted its customers, causing the interruption of business relationships with two major clients. The Italian holding company further claimed that this conduct resulted in both reputational harm and a weakening of its trademarks, as well as the loss of goodwill.
The Italian Court declared its lack of jurisdiction, identifying the French courts as having jurisdiction over the matter.
The decision revolves around the interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, and in particular the wording “place where the harmful event occurred”. In this regard, it is well established that the Court of Justice considers that such place may be, alternatively, either the location where the initial damage occurred (i.e. the direct damage or the so-called damage event) or the place where the harmful conduct was carried out.
In this case, according to the Court, both the alleged unlawful conduct and the damage had occurred entirely within French territory. From this perspective, the Court found that the unlawful diversion of clients concerned the French company controlled by the claimant, and that the unlawful conduct had been entirely carried out by the defendants in France.
The French company belonging to the group controlled by the claimant was therefore considered by the Court to be the entity which had suffered the damage resulting from the defendants’ conduct. The detrimental consequences indicated by the Italian holding company were not deemed sufficient to establish Italy as the place of the harmful event, also because the claimant failed to provide any evidence that the alleged harm to its image and trademarks caused by the defendants’ conduct had affected or spread within the Italian market.
Edoardo Episcopo
