'M5s symbol and name are mine': Grillo goes to war, what Conte risks

Beppe Grillo is going to war, and this time he is going all the way: about six months after the vote of the M5s constituent assembly that cancelled the figure of the Guarantor and overcame the last taboo of the grillino, that of the limit of the second term of office, the founder's parties are announcing 'shortly' 'a legal action to regain possession of the symbol and name of M5s'.

Grillo's tracks had been lost ever since, commenting on the outcome of the vote that had 'abolished' him, he had declared that 'seeing this symbol represented by these people gives me a sense of unease: get yourself another symbol, the movement is very dead but the humus inside it is not'. Now here we are, the appointment is in court. But who does the symbol of the movement born in 2009 really belong to? Lawyer Lorenzo Borrè, who in recent years has represented the members excluded from voting and managed to obtain the famous 'freezing' of the governing bodies by the Court of Naples between the summer of 2021 and the spring of 2022, has no doubts: it belongs to the founder and Guarantor through the 5 Star Movement Association. The proof comes from the Court of Appeal of Genoa, which with its 2021 judgement, now res judicata, on case no. 56/2020 - one of the many that have stormed the life of the movement, issued in the contradictory case between M5s of 2009, M5s of 2012 and M5s of 2017, the one now headed by Conte - "has said the final word on the point: the name '5 Star Movement' and the original mark belong exclusively to Grillo". Here is the salient point of the judgment of the third civil section: "A plain reading of art. 3 of the Rules of Procedure referred to therein, which states, verbatim, that 'the name of the 5 Star Movement is combined with a mark registered in the name of Beppe Grillo, who is the sole holder of the rights of use thereof' ... There is no doubt, as has already been correctly argued by the Court of First Instance, that the appellant's interpretation of that provision appears captious in so far as it purports to separate the use of the logo from that of the name, when it is clear that the 'rights of use', placed at the end of the sentence, can only refer to both the name and the logo'.

Then there is the question of the indemnity. If the contract with which Grillo received as much as 300,000 euro per year from the M5s for his communication activities was terminated in recent months, there remains on the table the proven writing with which Grillo undertakes not to promote 'any dispute' against the M5s regarding the use of its name and symbol, even if in the future the logo will be modified 'in whole or in part'. The quid pro quo for Grillo - who also undertakes 'not to lend functional and/or structural collaboration to other associations whose purpose is to carry out activities in opposition and/or competition' - is precisely the indemnity guaranteed by the movement that relieves him from the financial consequences of any court cases. Certainly the existence of this private contract, which has no time limit, ties Grillo's hands. But the decision to go to court means that the founder, for one reason or another, has reckoned on renouncing the indemnity ('there are very few lawsuits now', he is said to have confided in recent weeks to his faithful). And paradoxically,' the lawyer Borrè notes, 'this private contract is proof that the name and symbol belong to Grillo: "If the symbol belonged to Conte's party, in fact, why recognise a fee for not contesting the right to use the logo? And are we really sure that the contract armours the association? The first certainty of law, for those who practice it, is that there are no absolute certainties'.

There is matter for the lawyers. What is certain is that it is a long process with an uncertain outcome: if Grillo can claim ownership of the symbol, Conte points to the fact that jurisprudence has changed in recent years and no longer considers party symbols as corporate trademarks but rather as belonging by their nature to the community of members and sympathisers. As the constitutionalist Salvatore Curreri, an expert in party law, argues: 'The tendency to register party symbols as trademarks is opposed both at ministerial level, because it is contrary to the current legislation on industrial property and potentially circumvents the rules on the use of electoral signs, and at judicial level, where it is held that the right of individual property on the trademark cannot fully sacrifice the right to its own by a collective entity such as a political party'. In particular, Curreri further explains, the Court of Palermo (business section, order of 4 March 2015) ruled that the symbol of a party cannot be considered in the same way as a trade mark 'because it is an expression of the personal identity of the group of individuals who associate for the sharing of a certain political idea. Ultimately, the symbol of a party belongs not to an individual but to the political community that recognises itself in it and that can act in its protection in accordance with Article 7 of the Civil Code'.

In short, it will be a sizzling summer. In any case, if Grillo, at the end of what is expected to be a new judicial via crucis, is not content with snatching Conte's name and symbol but wants to run in the political elections under the old glorious banner, then things could get ugly for Campo Marzio. Antonio Noto, in the aftermath of the constituent vote, estimated that if there were two parties, one of Conte and one of Grillo, 30% of M5s voters would choose the second. It is true that in six months a lot of water has passed under the bridge, but it is also true that at the time of the Noto poll the choice was between two 'generic' parties: if Grillo regained the symbol and decided to run with someone from the old guard (Toninelli? Raggi?) the consequences could be even more serious for Conte. Symbols, it is known, have their weight in politics.