From 1 July 2026, Phase II of the EU's legislative reform on designs completes a process that began on 1 May 2025 and many of its practical consequences become a reality before the EUIPO. Its aim is to adapt the European Union's design protection system to a reality in which the appearance of a product can no longer always be explained by a static image. Today there are digital interfaces, animations, complex three-dimensional products, moving graphic elements, and designs that are exploited in physical and digital environments simultaneously. Therefore, one of the major innovations lies in the way the designs are represented. But it is not the only one. Changes are also being introduced to the procedures for invalidating designs, to communications with the Office, and to other procedures governing applications or registered designs. More views to represent a static design Until now, the maximum number of views subject to protection for a static design was seven. With phase II, that limit increases to ten. It may seem like a minor change, but in practice it can be relevant. Many products are not well understood from only a few perspectives: pieces with different faces, products with side details, designs with ornamental elements in various areas, or items whose appearance depends on how they are perceived from different angles. Having more views allows for a better description of what is to be protected and reduces doubts about the scope of the record. Dynamic 3D representations and animated designs The most striking change is the admission of new types of representation. From 1 July 2026, the EUIPO will accept dynamic 3D representations and animated representations. The expected formats are: Static views: JPEG, with a maximum of 2 MB per view. Dynamic 3D representations: OBJ and STL, with a maximum of 20 MB per file. Animated representations: MP4, with a maximum of 20 MB per file. In practice, the record will be able to more accurately reflect designs whose appearance depends on a sequence, a transition, a movement, or a 3D visualization. Let's think, for example, about graphical user interfaces, a visual transition, an animated icon, a graphic sequence, or a product whose perception depends on its movement. Even so, greater flexibility also requires more discernment. Before submitting an application, you will need to decide which form of representation best reflects the value of the design: a series of static views, a three-dimensional file, or an animation. It's not just about using the newest format, but the one best suited to clearly define the appearance you want to protect. For example, in animated representations the animation would form part of the object of protection, so in some cases it might be preferable to choose static or 3D views to protect the design. Visual disclaimers and image correction Phase II also specifies the use of disclaimers in the representations. These elements allow you to indicate which parts of an image are not part of the claimed design. In practice, they can be useful when you want to protect only a part of the product or when certain elements appear in the representation out of necessity, but you do not want to include them within the scope of protection. The possibility of modifying or altering the representations without losing the presentation date is also introduced, provided that they are intangible details. For example, a background can be corrected to achieve a neutral and acceptable representation. This point can prevent an application from being compromised by purely formal defects. But it's important not to confuse it with a second chance to change the design. The modification cannot affect the essential appearance of the protected object. Streamlined invalidity procedures Another relevant block affects applications for declarations of invalidity of EU designs. The reform aims to make these procedures more agile and orderly. Among the measures planned, the suspension of proceedings may have a maximum duration of two years. In addition, preference will be given to certain cases based on lack of novelty or unique character when the owner of the contested design has not responded. Applications for annulment must include a duly reasoned document, with a precise statement of facts, evidence and arguments, accompanied by the main supporting documentation. Special emphasis is placed on the evidence and how it should be provided. In other words, challenging an industrial design will require more order from the outset. It will not be enough to claim that a design "already existed" or that it lacks uniqueness. It will be necessary to prove it properly, identify prior disclosures, and argue why they affect the validity of the registered design. Proof of use when invalidity is based on an earlier trademark The reform also incorporates a relevant provision for cases in which the invalidity of a design is based on an earlier trademark. If that trademark has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may request proof of use of the earlier trademark for two five-year periods. These periods do not necessarily overlap and are calculated based on the date of submission of the application for annulment or the date of submission or priority of the contested design. This change links the invalidity of designs with a logic already known in matters of trademarks: whoever invokes a prior right must be able to demonstrate its use when the rule requires it. Electronic communications and new procedural tools The reform also updates the practical relationship with the EUIPO. Communications and notifications will be channeled electronically, which requires applicants, owners and representatives to pay special attention to the management of their accounts, notices and deadlines. Another important new development is the entry into force of the continuation procedure mechanism for EU designs. This mechanism, already familiar in the field of EU trademarks, will allow for the continuation of the process...Read more

Madrid, 3 June 2026. ELZABURU has been recognized once again in the new edition of IAM Patent 1000, one of the leading international directories in the field of patents, which identifies the most outstanding firms and professionals globally. The IAM Patent 1000 focuses on those firms and professionals considered outstanding in a key area of ​​patent law, highlighting technical quality, experience and the ability to advise on matters of special complexity. In this edition, ELZABURU reaffirms its Silver position in the Patent Litigation and Patent Prosecution categories, and expands its recognition with its recommendation in Patent Transactions, reflecting its ability to support clients in both the protection and defense of their assets and in their exploitation and transfer. IAM Patent 1000 highlights the firm's ability to act effectively throughout the entire life cycle of innovative assets, from identifying inventions and defining protection strategies to processing, opposition, judicial defense and contractual exploitation of patent rights. The directory also highlights the multidisciplinary nature of the ELZABURU team, made up of engineers, chemists, biotechnologists, life science specialists and lawyers, who work in a coordinated manner to offer technical and legal advice in highly diverse sectors. The publication also highlights the growing importance of the firm's litigation practice, as well as its experience in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, which allow it to offer clients solutions tailored to each situation when litigation is not necessarily the most appropriate option. In this edition, IAM Patent 1000 has individually highlighted eight professionals from ELZABURU for their career and specialization: Enrique Armijo, partner in the legal area, is recognized for a career of more than three decades in high-impact industrial and intellectual property litigation, as well as for his experience in the contractual and commercial structuring of the exploitation of intangible assets, including licenses, assignments, joint ventures, franchises and technology transfers. Colm Ahern, partner in the legal area, stands out for his dual profile as an industrial engineer and lawyer, which brings a particularly relevant technical depth to patent litigation linked to sectors such as automotive, household appliances and electronics. Carlos Morán, partner in the legal area, is once again recognized for his participation in complex national and international matters related to industrial property and unfair competition. IAM Patent 1000 particularly highlights its involvement in landmark cases at the European level and its contribution to the legal protection of the Champagne designation of origin. Ruth Sánchez, partner in the patents area, is recognized for her strategic leadership in the protection and management of inventions at the national, European and international levels. An engineer and European patent agent, she advises clients in sectors such as aerospace, automotive, construction and civil engineering. Francisco Javier Sáez, partner in the patent area, is noted for his extensive experience in the drafting, processing and defense of patent applications in Spain, Europe and the PCT system, with special focus on the chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, environmental and agrochemical sectors. Pedro Saturio, associate partner in the patents area, joins the ranking for his work in electromechanical patents and industrial designs. Industrial engineer and European patent agent, she advises on high-tech projects in sectors such as aerospace, automotive, transport, defense, energy and construction. María Cadarso, senior associate in the legal area, is recognized as an emerging talent for her practice in industrial property, intellectual property and unfair competition litigation. His work combines conflict resolution with a preventative approach focused on contract negotiation and the design of strategies that allow anticipating and avoiding potential disputes. Alba María López, associate partner in the Legal, Business and Contracts area, also enters the ranking for her experience in industrial and intellectual property, digital law and technology. His practice focuses on intangible asset governance models, technology transfer transactions, complex intellectual property and ICT contracts, due diligence processes, and litigation matters. ELZABURU's continued presence in IAM Patent 1000 reflects the strength of a patent practice built on technical specialization, legal rigor, and a comprehensive vision of innovation as a strategic asset for companies.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 September 2025, LEGO (C-211/24). Facts about the judgment Lego A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lego) is the holder of EU designs no. 001950981-0001 and 002137190-0002, relating to building elements belonging to a construction set, and registered on 22 November 2011 and 16 November 2012, respectively, representations of which are included below: EU design no. 001950981-0001 EU design no. 002137190-0002 Pozitív Energiaforrás (hereinafter referred to as Positív) attempted to import into Hungary construction sets comprising, among others, the building elements represented below in the second column: EU designs of LEGO Building elements of Pozitív Energiaforrás Following the complaint filed by Lego, the Tax Administration and Hungarian customs ordered the seizure of the construction sets and initiated infringement proceedings for suspected violation of Lego's industrial and intellectual property rights. On June 22, 2022, Lego filed a request for provisional measures to maintain the embargo. The request was denied by the court of first instance, considering that Positiv's building elements produced a different general impression on the informed user than Lego's designs. Lego filed an appeal with the Capital High Court, which modified the previous order and ordered the seizure of Positiv's games, considering that Lego's designs did not produce a different general impression on the informed user than Positiv's building elements. Positív filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Hungary, which upheld the previous decision of the Capital High Court. Lego then filed an infringement action against Positív before the Capital General Court. The Court questioned what the skills of the “informed user” of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 were, when it came to assessing the overall impression made on him by the designs of Article 8(3) of that Regulation (i.e., designs that allow the assembly or connection of multiple mutually interchangeable products within a modular system). The interpretation of Article 89 of said Regulation was also raised, and more specifically, the scope of the concept of "special reasons". In these circumstances, the General Court of the Capital stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling: 1. In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the proprietor invokes a design protected under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 in respect of one or more building blocks of a construction set of the defendant which fulfill the same assembly function as the blocks of the design of the applicant, is a judicial practice compatible with EU law whereby the courts, in determining the scope of protection, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Regulation, of the design of the applicant: rely on an informed user who, regarding the function of the design and that of the product, possesses the technical knowledge that can be expected of an expert in the field; Do they consider an informed user to be one who compares the plaintiff's drawing or model and the defendant's product through a thorough, technical, and methodical examination, and assume that this informed user forms their overall impression of the drawing or model and the product, above all, as a technical opinion? 2. In the event that, in a case with the characteristics described, it is concluded that the protection conferred by the applicant's design or model extends to one or a few pieces present in the defendant's construction sets, which, however, represent a small number of building blocks in relation to the total, is it in accordance with EU law to recognize a discretionary power whereby, taking into account the partial nature of the infringement, the minor seriousness and proportion of the infringement in relation to the goods as a whole and the interests associated with the unrestricted trade of a construction set that is, for the most part, uncontested, reasons which qualify as "well-founded grounds" for the purposes of Article 89(1) of the Regulation, the court dismisses the claim to prohibit the continued importation of the construction set into the country? Rulings on the case The judgment examines both preliminary questions separately and sets out its interpretation of Article 10 and Article 89(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. As regards the first preliminary question, it concludes that Article 10 must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of protection of a design pursuant to Article 8(3) must be assessed taking into account the overall impression produced by that design on an informed user who, without being a designer or technical expert: is familiar with the different designs existing in the sector concerned, has a certain degree of knowledge about the elements that those designs normally contain and, due to his interest in the products concerned, pays a relatively high degree of attention when using them as elements of the modular system of which they form part. The impression produced on a user who, having technical knowledge analogous to that of a professional, thoroughly examines the drawing or model in question and whose overall impression rests mainly on technical considerations should not be taken into account. As regards the second preliminary question, it states that Article 89(1) must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an infringement only affects certain elements of a modular system, few in number in relation to the whole of the components of ...Read more

Madrid, March 25, 2026 – ELZABURU has once again been recognized as one of the leading firms in Industrial and Intellectual Property in Spain by the international directory Legal 500, consolidating its position in comprehensive advice in this field. In this edition, the firm particularly strengthens its position in the area of ​​Trademarks and consolidates its presence in Patents and Copyright, three key pillars in the management and protection of intangible assets. Adding to this recognition is a particularly significant achievement: direct client feedback through the Client Satisfaction Index (NPS®), where ELZABURU achieves the highest levels. This result reflects not only the technical quality of the advice, but also differentiating aspects such as personalized service, agility, and the ability to deliver real value in every project. The Legal 500 directory also includes client testimonials obtained independently by its research team, highlighting the firm's work in various areas: Trademarks: “They have a thorough understanding of the client's inner workings and are known in the sector for their dedication to delivering the best possible service.” Patents: “They stand out for their years of experience, making them leaders in the sector. Their lawyers not only master the legal aspects but also understand scientific claims and design patent strategies tailored to our needs.” Copyright: “Mabel Klimt has many years of experience, professionalism, problem-solving skills, and practicality in addressing situations and difficulties presented by different projects.” At an individual level, Legal 500 highlights several professionals from the firm: Mabel Klimt, recognized as a Leading Partner in Copyright; Enrique Armijo Chávarri, recognized as a Leading Partner in Patents. Additionally, the following have been included in the various rankings by area: Trademarks: Luis Baz, Carlos Morán, Enrique Armijo, and Ana Donate. Patents: Enrique Armijo, Ruth Sánchez, Colm Ahern, Pedro Saturio, and Alba Mª López. Copyright: Mabel Klimt, Enrique Armijo, Carlos Morán, Alba Mª López, and Inés de Casas. This recognition highlights the strength of ELZABURU's team and its multidisciplinary approach to advising on industrial and intellectual property, as well as its ability to support companies in the protection, defense, and strategic exploitation of their intangible assets.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2025, Deity Shoes (C-323/24). 1. Facts Deity Shoes (hereinafter, Deity) is a company from Elche that owns several EU designs relating to footwear. Their designs are created from catalogs of Chinese trading companies, which offer predetermined components, and which allow customization of different aspects of the footwear, such as color, material and location of buckles, laces and other ornamental elements. On December 10, 2021, Deity filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante for infringement of several registered and unregistered EU designs relating to shoes against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. On April 12, 2022, the defendant companies filed a counterclaim, requesting the annulment of said designs. They argued that the controversial designs had not been the subject of any innovation, since Deity merely marketed products offered by Chinese trading companies, and that they did not meet the requirements of novelty and uniqueness. On May 24, 2022, Deity responded to the counterclaim. The Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante raised several doubts about the interpretation of Regulation No. 6/2002 in the sector in question, and therefore decided to suspend the proceedings and send the following preliminary questions to the CJEU: “1) In order for a design to be protected by the protection regime of Regulation No. 6/2002, is it necessary that there be a genuine design activity so that the design is the result of the intellectual effort of its creator? And, in this sense, can the combination of components based on models whose appearance characteristics are mostly predetermined by trading companies be considered a genuine design activity, so that modifications to certain elements should be considered occasional and incidental?  2) In relation to the above,… can the totality or part of the appearance characteristics of a product resulting from the customization of designs offered by Chinese trading companies according to catalogs of said companies be considered to have a singular character in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, when the activity of the design holder is limited to marketing in the European Economic Area (EEA) those designs without modifications or with specific modifications of components (such as soles, rivets, laces, buckles…) and the appearance characteristics are mostly predetermined by the trading companies? For these purposes, is it relevant that the components are not designed by the holder of the Community design, but are instead components offered by the trading company itself within its catalog?  3) Should Article 14 [of Regulation No 6/2002] be interpreted as meaning that the author of the design may be someone who, on the basis of a design offered by trading companies according to a catalogue, has merely customized that previous design by modifying components also offered by the trader that have not been designed by the proprietor of the Community design? In this sense, is it required to prove a certain degree of customization in order to demonstrate that the final form deviates significantly from the original design in order to claim authorship?  4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in a case such as the present one, given the special characteristics of footwear designed from samples provided by trading companies and, insofar as the “design” is limited to the selection of previous designs from a sample and, where appropriate, to the variation of some of its components, within the catalog offered by the trading company, all following fashion trends, it must be understood that these fashion trends: a) limit the freedom of the author in such a way that small differences between the registered (or unregistered) design and another model may be sufficient to give a differentiated general impression or, on the contrary, b) affect the singular character of the registered (or unregistered) design in such a way that those elements or components will have less importance in the general impression they produce on the informed user insofar as they result from known fashion trends when compared with another model?” 2. Rulings The judgment examines the preliminary questions in two separate groups: first and third, on the one hand, and second and fourth, on the other hand, setting out its interpretation of the relevant articles of Regulation No 6/2002. As regards the first and third preliminary questions, the judgment concludes that Articles 4 to 6, in light of Article 14 of the Regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to enjoy the protection conferred on a Community design, the proprietor or author of that design is not required to demonstrate, in addition to the fulfillment of the requirements of novelty and individual character, that it results from a minimum degree of design. As regards the second and fourth preliminary questions, the judgment concludes that Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that designs have appearance characteristics predetermined by a model proposed in a supplier's catalogue to the author of those designs, and that the modifications introduced by the author to those designs are only occasional and relate to components proposed by that supplier, cannot, in itself, preclude the recognition of their individual character. On the other hand, fashion trends cannot limit the degree of freedom of the author, so that minor differences between one or more previous designs and the controversial design may be enough for the latter to produce a different overall impression on the informed user than that produced by those previous designs, and, therefore, to have a unique character. The characteristics of a design that result...Read more

The commemoration of the centenary of the Hague System for the international registration of industrial designs marks a historic milestone that invites reflection on the evolution of design, its economic relevance and its role as an engine of business competitiveness. For over a century, this WIPO-administered system has enabled creators and companies to protect the appearance of their products in multiple markets through a single procedure, promoting a global ecosystem of innovation, beauty, and utility. A century protecting creativity: anniversary context The Hague System was created in 1925 with the aim of providing a simplified way to protect designs beyond borders. The first applications, such as fabrics for ladies' hats, contrast radically with the current records of graphic interfaces, robots, or electric vehicles. During this time, the system has grown from 11 initial signatories to 82 member states and intergovernmental organizations from 99 countries. Today, the numbers speak for themselves: More than 2 million industrial design registrations since the system's creation. In 2024 alone, there were 27.161 applications, an increase of almost 7% compared to 2023. A benchmark economic volume: in 2024, investment in designs exceeded 685.000 billion USD in the US. US, UK and EU. In these one hundred years, the system has evolved with new records, technological improvements (such as electronic submission), geographical expansion and the addition of design powers such as the US. USA, China, South Korea or Japan. New types of designs, especially digital ones, have also been incorporated, reflecting how the traditional concept of "product appearance" has expanded to include, for example, graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Industrial designs that marked an era: six emblematic cases To celebrate this centenary and highlight the impact of protected design, professionals from the Industrial Designs Area of ​​Elzaburu analyze iconic objects whose protection through industrial design has been key to their legacy. 1. Playmobil figures — Paloma Querol The design of Playmobil has remained virtually unchanged since its origins. Its formal simplicity (rounded head, permanent smile, standardized proportions) is the basis of its success. The protection of industrial design has been essential to safeguarding a recognizable aesthetic that has transcended generations and expanded to dozens of countries. As Paloma Querol points out, it is a paradigmatic case of how a minimalist design can sustain an infinite creative universe. 2. Piaggio Vespa scooter — Pedro Saturio Pedro Saturio highlights the Vespa as an example of design that transcends function. Inspired by post-war urban mobility, its "wasp" shaped silhouette, self-supporting chassis and accessible driving made it a cultural symbol. Protecting its industrial design has been fundamental to maintaining its identity against imitations in a highly competitive market. 3. Swiss Army Knife — Manolo Mínguez Manolo Mínguez explains that the Swiss Army Knife stands out for its industrial design focused on functionality. Its elongated and compact shape, designed to house multiple tools in a single, small-volume body, and its foldable structure have made this object a benchmark of utilitarian design. Protection as an industrial design has been essential to preserve this characteristic configuration against products that have tried to replicate its technical solution and overall appearance. 4. Sony's PlayStation — Bosco de la Vega Bosco de la Vega focuses on Sony's first PlayStation as an example of how industrial design can define an entire product category. Launched in 1994, its external configuration (the flat rectangular shape, the disc located in the center and the characteristic arrangement of buttons) helped to build a consistent and recognizable user experience in a rapidly expanding market. Its protection as an industrial design has helped to consolidate the console's visual identity and preserve an appearance that, over time, has become a cultural benchmark. 5. Xiaomi Electric Scooter — Ruth Sánchez The rise of micromobility has positioned the electric scooter as an everyday object. The Xiaomi Electric, registered in 2019, stands out for its stylish design, clean geometry, and portability. As Ruth Sánchez points out, protecting these types of designs is essential given the rapid emergence of competitors and constant technological evolution. 6. Birkenstock Arizona Big Buckle Sandals — Sara Navarro Sara Navarro highlights the importance of design in traditionally functional products. The Arizona Big Buckle model combines ergonomics, sustainability and a distinctive style thanks to its iconic oversized buckle. Its registration as an industrial design has allowed it to consolidate a recognizable aesthetic and protect the investment in comfort and brand. A century later, industrial designs remain essential. After one hundred years of history, the Hague System demonstrates that the protection of industrial designs not only preserves the external appearance of a product: it drives innovation, protects investment, strengthens brands and allows competition in global markets. In an environment where visual differentiation is more strategic than ever, having a protected design makes the difference between leading or falling behind. At Elzaburu we have a team specializing in industrial designs that advises on the best way to register, protect and defend creations in the different markets in which your company operates.

Madrid, November 13, 2025 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has achieved excellent results in the Best Lawyers in Spain awards, a professional recognition based on the consensus opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues within the same geographic area and legal practice. With 35 lawyers and technical experts referenced and a total of 43 mentions, ELZABURU consolidates its position as the industrial and intellectual property firm with the most recognized professionals in this edition, thus reinforcing its leading position in the Spanish market. Regarding the individuals referenced in this year's edition, these are the ELZABURU professionals who appear in the ranking: Intellectual Property Law: Colm Ahern, Agustín Alguacil, Mónica Amores, Enrique Armijo, Cristina Arroyo, Luis Baz, Luis Beneyto, Catherine Bonzom, Ignacio Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Alfonso Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Cristina Espín, Mercedes García, Irene Gascón, Fernando Ilardia, Mabel Klimt, Xavier Lamíquiz, Miguel Ángel Medina, Carlos Morán, Tránsito Ruiz, Francisco J. Sáez, José Ignacio San Martín, Ruth Sánchez, Ana Sanz, Pedro Saturio, Rosa Torrecillas, Cristina Velasco and Manolo Mínguez. Litigation: Enrique Armijo, Alba Mª López, and Carlos Morán; Information Technology: Ruth Benito; Privacy & Data Protection: Ruth Benito; Technology Law: Ruth Benito; Communications Law: Mabel Klimt; Entertainment Law: Mabel Klimt; Competition: Carlos Morán. Regarding the Ones to Watch distinction, which recognizes lawyers in the early stages of their careers who have already demonstrated outstanding excellence in their legal practice, the recipients were: María Cadarso and Alberto Gallo in Litigation; and Inés de Casas, Sara Navarro, Paloma Querol, and, again, Alberto Gallo, in Intellectual Property. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, thorough, rational, and transparent survey process designed to obtain meaningful and substantive assessments of the quality of legal services. According to this organization, “the quality of a peer-review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.”

Madrid, July 17, 2025. ELZABURU, the leading firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has obtained a notable presence in all five Intellectual Property categories in the 2025 edition of the Leaders League ranking. This recognition consolidates ELZABURU as a leading firm in Spain in the field of industrial and intellectual property and innovation, underscoring the strength of its teams, its highly specialized approach, and its ability to offer comprehensive advice to both national and international clients. In particular, ELZABURU has been recognized as the only Spanish firm at the top of the ranking in the area of ​​Trademark Registration, which demonstrates its leadership position in this field. In addition, the firm has been distinguished in other key categories: Leader in: Patent Litigation Patent Registration Trademark Registration Excellent in: Copyright Trademark Litigation Valuable Practice in: Data Protection In addition, several professionals from the firm have been individually recognized for their career and contribution in these areas: Enrique Armijo Chávarri, Partner of the Legal Department. Luis Baz Baz, Partner in the Trademark practice. Carlos Morán, Partner in the Legal practice. Colm Ahern, Partner in the Legal practice. Francisco Javier Sáez, Partner in the Patent practice. Ruth Sánchez, Partner in the Patent practice. Pedro Saturio Carrasco, Associate Partner in the Patent practice. Mabel Klimt, Managing Partner of Elzaburu and Director of the Legal practice. Ruth Benito Martín, Of Counsel. Prepared by the authors based on the results of the Leaders League 2025 ranking. At ELZABURU, we appreciate the trust of our clients and renew our commitment to professional excellence, the defense of innovation, and the protection of knowledge. This recognition reinforces ELZABURU's position as one of the leading firms in legal and strategic advice on industrial and intellectual property matters and endorses its role as a trusted partner for companies that invest in the value of intangibles as a driver of development and competitiveness.

The legal framework governing the protection of industrial designs and models in the European Union has been updated with the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823. This legislative reform marks a significant milestone in the harmonization and modernization of the system for registering and protecting industrial designs in Europe, the previous directive of which dated back to 1998. With this reform, the European Union seeks to facilitate access to industrial design protection, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while adapting to the technological and economic challenges of the digital age. Main consequences of the legislative reform on designs Change of terminology: the term “Community design” is replaced by “European Union design,” harmonizing this concept with others such as the “European Union trademark.” Limited to a maximum of 50 designs per multiple request. The requirement for unity of class for multiple design applications in the EU has been removed: it is now possible to include designs from different classes in a single application. The publication fee is abolished for design applications (submitted on or after May 1, 2025) and requests for deferral of publication. With the new rule, if you want to abandon a design without publishing it, you must expressly renounce the design (abandonment by omission will no longer be possible). Other implications of the new law on industrial designs and models 1. Expansion of the concept of industrial design One of the major innovations in the industrial design law is the expansion of the definition of “product” eligible for protection. From now on, not only designs applied to physical objects can be registered, but also those that: Are displayed in graphic or digital environments. They represent the spatial arrangement of elements in indoor or outdoor environments. Include animations, movements, or transitions as part of the design's appearance. 2. Scope of protection and visible elements Protection is limited to the features visible in the representations of the registered design. However, these characteristics do not necessarily need to be visible at a specific time or situation of use. There is only one exception: in the case of complex product components, protection will only apply to elements visible during normal use of the product. 3. Legislative harmonization and repair clause The repair clause for spare parts is now mandatory for all Member States of the European Union. This harmonizes the legal situation regarding the use of protected designs to repair a complex product and thus restore its original appearance, when the design is incorporated into an object that constitutes a component of a complex product on whose appearance the protected design of the component depends. 4. Prevention against unauthorized 3D printing Another critical point is the emergence of technologies such as 3D printing. To prevent infringements, the new regulations clarify that: "The creation, downloading, copying, and making available of any medium or software that registers the design for the purpose of reproducing a product that infringes the protected design" without authorization is strictly prohibited. 5. Representation of designs: new accepted formats The regulations also anticipate an update in the permitted formats for the presentation of designs. Pending official confirmation, 3D videos and images are expected to be accepted as alternative representation media to the traditional seven static views. 6. Changes in fees and associated costs Relevant changes have been made to the fee schedule: Increase in renewal fees. Reduction of appeal fees and declaration of nullity. Elimination of fees such as publication and transfer fees. Design Standard Implementation Schedule: Two Key Phases The implementation of this reform will be carried out in two phases: First phase: May 1, 2025, when many of the changes described come into force. Second phase: July 1, 2026, where the deployment of the new regulatory framework will be completed. For their part, EU Member States will have until December 9, 2027, to incorporate the changes in the new Directive into their respective national legislation. New Law on Industrial Designs and Models, a Step Forward in Design Protection Although not a regulatory revolution, this update represents a substantial improvement in the legal protection of industrial designs in the European Union. The deposit and registration system remains in place, and substantive examination of designs continues only in cases where an application for a declaration of invalidity is filed against the registered design. Likewise, we won't know until next year how the key aspects of the second phase will materialize. Some of these changes could have a significant practical impact, both for designers and for companies that use industrial designs as a competitive asset. Ultimately, users of the European Union's design protection system will have new legal tools that will allow them to protect their creations more effectively and flexibly in an increasingly digital and globalized market. At Elzaburu, we will continue to report on the progress of the practical implementation of these reforms, especially with a view to the second phase, which will come into effect in 2026. Pedro Saturio, Associate Partner of the Patent Area of ​​Elzaburu.

Madrid, March 27, 2025 – ELZABURU has once again been recognized by The Legal 500, one of the most prestigious international legal directories, as one of the leading firms in Industrial and Intellectual Property in Spain. In this year's edition, ELZABURU has renewed its position in the trademark area and has received strong references in copyright, patents, and privacy and data protection. In the trademark area, Luis Baz, Enrique Armijo, Carlos Morán, and Manuel Mínguez were recognized in Tier 1. The firm's excellence in trademark portfolio management and conflict prevention was highlighted. They stand out for their excellence in the management of trademark portfolios, as well as in the pre-litigation and litigation phases. The Legal 500 also highlighted ELZABURU's positioning in the management and protection of Spanish and European patents in Tier 2, recognizing the work of Ruth Sánchez, Francisco Javier Sáez, Pedro Saturio, and Enrique Armijo. "With extensive experience in patent prosecution and litigation, Elzaburu is a popular choice for clients from the retail, aerospace, and automotive sectors, among others. The group is well positioned to advise on the management and protection of Spanish and European patents." Regarding copyright, referenced in Tier 3, the firm's Managing Partner once again stands out as a Leader, joined by Enrique Armijo, Carlos Morán, and Inés de Casas in this area. 'With a strong presence in the media and entertainment sectors, Elzaburu is a firm choice for production companies and video gaming clients seeking assistance with IP rights purchases, licensing agreements, disputes, and regulatory compliance.' Finally, the board also recognized ELZABURU as a firm to watch in the area of ​​privacy and data protection, highlighting the work of Ruth Benito. Elzaburu has an active partner in Ruth Benito Martín, who specializes in personal data privacy and protection. Her work encompasses data protection impact assessments, risk analysis, regulatory, and contentious matters. This recognition reflects the quality and talent of the professionals who make up the firm, as well as its ability to adapt to the changing needs of its clients and the legal environment.