Territorial jurisdiction and the sale of counterfeit products online: insights from Order no. 30212/2025

E-commerce has revolutionized the global market, yet it has also introduced significant legal complexities, particularly regarding the protection of industrial property. When counterfeit goods are sold online, one of the most debated preliminary issues concerns the identification of the court with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Court of Cassation, with Order no. 30212 of November 16, 2025, has intervened to clarify this delicate matter, dismissing the appeal and defining precise criteria that go beyond the mere criterion of the place of physical delivery of the goods.

The case and relevant legislation

The dispute, involving M. B. and P. D. L., originated from allegations of counterfeiting and unfair competition via digital channels. At the heart of the debate is the application of Article 120, paragraph 6, of the Industrial Property Code (Legislative Decree 30/2005), in conjunction with Article 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 2598 of the Civil Code regarding unfair competition. The determination of the forum commissi delicti (the place where the harmful act was committed) represents the core of the decision.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation

To fully understand the scope of the decision, it is essential to analyze the principle established by the Court in Order no. 30212/2025:

In the case of the sale of counterfeit goods via a website, for the purpose of identifying the court with territorial jurisdiction, the place where the act was committed, pursuant to Art. 120, paragraph 6, of the Industrial Property Code, understood as the place where the harmful conduct took place, is to be identified as the advertiser's establishment where the technical process aimed at displaying the advertisement and concluding the purchase (including payment of the consideration) was initiated, or, alternatively, the place where the company managing the website is based, and not the place where the delivery of the goods actually occurred.

This principle categorically excludes the possibility that the place of physical delivery of goods purchased online can establish the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Conversely, the Supreme Court emphasizes the dematerialized conduct of the advertiser or the operator of the web platform.

Criteria for identifying the competent court

The Court of Cassation outlines a precise framework for selecting the competent forum, identifying two alternative but well-defined locations:

• The advertiser's establishment: meaning the physical location where the party who published the advertisement initiated the technical IT process to make the offer visible and enable the purchase.
• The registered office of the website operator: meaning the legal headquarters of the company that administers the internet platform where the sale of counterfeit goods takes place.

This interpretation is in perfect continuity with previous case law (such as judgments no. 35056 of 2021 and no. 5309 of 2020), consolidating a trend that protects legal certainty in the digital age, avoiding the fragmentation of forums based on individual product shipping locations.

Conclusions and practical implications

The Court of Cassation's Order no. 30212/2025 provides an essential clarification for companies and professionals tasked with protecting their trademarks and patents online. By excluding the place of delivery of the counterfeit goods as a connecting factor, the Court simplifies the identification of the competent forum, anchoring it to stable and easily identifiable elements such as the location of the advertiser or the provider. For holders of infringed industrial property rights, this means being able to plan more targeted and efficient legal actions, reducing the risk of objections regarding territorial incompetence that would inevitably slow down the protection of their rights.