Following the recent anniversary of the Court of Brands y Designs of the EU, in our first installment we explore how it came about the bet on Alicante as the seat of this judicial body.
In this second installment, we will analyze the multiple transformations that the Court has undergone in its 20 years of existence. How it has evolved both in its structure and its jurisdiction and how it has become established as a benchmark in the protection of industrial property rights in Europe.
Changes in the name and structure of the Court: a continuous evolution
Over the past twenty years, the Alicante Court specialising in trademarks and designs has experienced constant evolution, manifested on three fundamental levels.
First of all, it has changed its name several times. Initially known as Community Trade Mark Court, was renamed European Union Trademark and Design Court, and more recently the expression has begun to be used Court of First Instance for the European Union Trade Mark.
These are not simple cosmetic changes; the latter name suggests a collegial action by the courts with jurisdiction in the matter, similar to the Patent Court of First Instance of Barcelona.
The expansion of the Court: creation of new specialized bodies
Another significant evolutionary aspect is the expansion of the jurisdictional body. While at first only Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante dealt with disputes involving trademarks and designs from the European Union, Commercial Court No. 2 was soon added to these functions, and more recently, Commercial Court No. 4, newly created, also in Alicante. Only Court No. 3, located in Elche, has remained outside this specialised jurisdiction.
This proliferation of courts may require some action. collegiate or coordinated to avoid a lack of homogeneity, both procedural and substantive, despite how unusual this may seem in the judicial organization at first instance.
Expansion of powers: new frontiers in the Jurisdiction
The jurisdictional sphere has been the third area in which the Court has shown a notable evolution. Since its beginnings, one of the most relevant debates in the practice of litigation has been the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Union Trademark and Design Court. Originally limited to actions for infringement of European Union trademarks or designs, this restrictive approach was soon replaced by the application of the procedural principle of attractiveness. This allowed the Court to admit actions for invalidity of company names, infringement of national trademarks combined with other European Union trademarks, and actions in copyright matters linked to European Union trademarks.
This interpretation was later endorsed by the legislator, turning what were initially jurisprudential criteria into normative criteria. An example of this is the recent Organic Law 7/2022, which reformed article 86 quinquies of the LOPJ. This development has allowed the court to concentrate on what is truly essential: the construction of a solid judicial doctrine.
In our next installment we will delve deeper into the achievements made thanks to this specialization.
Ana sanz, Associate Partner of the Litigation Department by ELZABURU
