When a Distributor Becomes a Producer: Italian Supreme Court on Brand Identity and Product Liability

​In a recent decision concerning product liability, the Italian Supreme Court (Civil Section II, 15 December 2025, No. 32673) clarified the circumstances in which a distributor may be treated as a “producer” under EU law, even where its name or trademark has not been physically affixed to the product. The ruling follows a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union and confirms a broad interpretation of Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products.

The case arose from a road accident involving a passenger vehicle in which the airbag allegedly failed to deploy. The injured party brought a claim for damages against the Italian distributor of the vehicle, assuming it to be the manufacturer.

The distributor argued that it was not the actual manufacturer, maintaining that the true producer was a foreign company within the same corporate group and that, as a mere supplier, it could not incur liability where the manufacturer was identifiable.

The Italian Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, holding that the distributor could not avoid liability simply by identifying the manufacturer without formally bringing that entity into the proceedings. The dispute was therefore brought before the Italian Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

The case required interpretation of Italian Presidential Decree No. 224/1988, which implemented Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products, in particular Article 3(1) of the Directive defining the notion of “producer”.

Under EU law, the term “producer” includes not only the actual manufacturer but also any person who, by placing his name, trademark or other distinguishing sign on the product, presents himself as its producer.

The central issue was whether a distributor may qualify as a “producer” even where it did not physically affix its name or trademark to the product, in circumstances where its name, or a distinctive element of it, coincides with the trademark affixed to the product by the actual manufacturer.

CJEU Ruling

In response to the preliminary reference, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that a supplier may qualify as a “person presenting himself as producer” even where it did not physically attach the trademark to the product.

This may occur where the trademark appearing on the product corresponds to the supplier’s name, or to a distinctive element of it, and also corresponds to the name of the actual manufacturer. In such circumstances, the decisive factor is the perception created for the consumer.

Where the distributor benefits from the reputation and consumer trust associated with the trademark, it may be treated as a producer. The Court emphasized that Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products must be interpreted broadly in light of its consumer-protection objective.

Supreme Court Decision

Applying the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court confirmed that liability for defective products is not confined to the entity that physically manufactured the product. A distributor may incur producer-level liability where brand identity is capable of generating consumer reliance.

In particular, the Court clarified that a supplier is not automatically released from liability merely by identifying the manufacturer. Where an overlap in branding objectively creates the appearance that the distributor is responsible for the product, liability may arise irrespective of which entity actually manufactured it.

Practical Implications

The ruling reiterates several important principles of EU product liability law.

First, liability depends on the manner in which the product is presented on the market and on consumer perception, rather than solely on formal corporate roles.

Secondly, brand identity may entail legal responsibility. If a distributor benefits commercially from a trademark that coincides with the manufacturer’s identity, it may also bear the corresponding legal exposure.

Thirdly, injured parties may seek full compensation from those economic operators who appear responsible in the marketplace. In this respect, Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products leaves limited scope for restrictive national interpretations.

For companies operating within corporate groups or branded distribution networks, the implications are significant. Corporate structures do not automatically shield distributors from product liability. Branding strategies may directly influence litigation risk, and the use of shared trademarks within corporate groups requires careful legal assessment. Internal indemnity arrangements between group companies do not eliminate external liability towards injured consumers.

The ruling of the Italian Supreme Court confirms a broader trend in EU product liability law: the presence of a brand in the marketplace may translate into liability. Where a distributor appears, even indirectly, to assume the role of producer through shared brand identity, it may be treated as such for liability purposes.

Leveraging on a longstanding and deep experience, in particular in the Life Science segment, van Berings is well positioned to assist manufacturers and distributors in complicated product liability litigations, recall campaigns and regulatory assessments.