Extract Industrial Property Code, Arts. 12(1) and 19(2) – Hotel Britannique Headnotes by the Editorial Office 1. The sale of real estate does not automatically imply the transfer of an unregistered trademark. 2. The cessation of a business does not automatically entail the cessation of existence of an unregistered trademark or the loss of its ownership. 3. The likelihood of confusion is not ruled out by the fact that an unregistered trademark belongs to an inactive company. The company may still resume direct use of the trademark or monetise its value by selling it to third parties. 4. In certain circumstances, a trademark registration may be invalidated on the grounds of both lack of novelty and bad faith. Supreme Court of Cassation (Corte Suprema di Cassazione), judgment of 5 March 2024 – 5866/2024 Facts and previous instances The Court of Appeal of Rome, with judgment No. 5199/2022 published on 27 July 2022, reformed the first instance decision by the Tribunal of Rome in the proceedings started by Hotel Britannique Srl (hereinafter also HB) – a company that from 1979 to mid-2016 had owned and managed the Hotel Britannique, a hotel facility located in N (…) – and by BB, the company executive officer, also on his own behalf, against Palazzo AA Spa (hereinafter also PC), which in 2016 had signed with the plaintiff first a purchase option agreement and, then, a preliminary contract of sale and later, in January 2017, a final contract of sale relating to the real estate where the Hotel Britannique was located.