The parody exception to copyright: the final chapter in the “Zorro” saga
05 Jun 2026
Rome Court of Appeal, 17th March 2026, no. 2195
The Rome Court of Appeal ruled on a complex dispute involving a US company, owner of the copyrights on the fictional character “Zorro”, and of the trademark on the same name, which initiated a lawsuit against an Italian company that had broadcast a mineral water advertising campaign centered on a comic representation of Zorro.
The dispute came before the Court of Appeal after being the subject of a highly interesting ruling by the Italian Supreme Court (Cass. civ. no. 38168/2022), concerning the parody exception to copyright.
With that decision, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the parody exception in the Italian copyright system, tracing it back to the exceptions “for the use of criticism or discussion” referred to in Article 70 of the Italian Copyright Statute. The Court also clarified that, to be considered lawful, a parody does not need to possess a creative character such as to make it an independently protectable work; it is sufficient that it presents “perceptible differences” compared to the parodied work. According to the Supreme Court, the lawfulness of a parody must be determined on a case-by-case basis, balancing the interests of the person making the parody and those of the owner of the parodied work. However, the profit-making purpose that may characterize the parody (as in the case of a parody in the context of advertising) does not automatically tip the balance in favor of the copyright owner; on the contrary, the parody remains lawful as long as it does not enter in competition with “the economic utilization of the work” (as provided for by Art. 70 L.d.A.).
The Rome Court of Appeal, therefore, had to apply the aforementioned principles to establish whether the humorous representation of Zorro, the subject of the defendant’s advertising campaign, constituted a lawful parody pursuant to Art. 70 L.d.A. The Court ruled in the affirmative, holding that there was no infringement of the copyrights on the Zorro character.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the actor of the advertising campaign did evoke the figure of Zorro, but at the same time was different in terms of age, character, and way of expressing himself (the “perceptible differences” mentioned by the Italian Supreme Court). The Court of Appeal further noted that, while the plaintiff complained that the defendant’s advertising campaign constituted a form of “free-riding” on Zorro’s reputation, the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the advertising campaign had competed with the economic exploitation of the work. The balance of interests was therefore resolved in favor of the defendant who created the parody.
It must be pointed out, for the sake of completeness, that the defendant was in any case found liable for the infringement of the plaintiff’s “Zorro” trademark, since the Court of Appeal deemed that such trademark was used in the defendant’s advertising campaign, and that the latter had taken advantage of the trademark’s reputation.
Carmine Di Sanza
