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.

CONTEXT A conflict that questioned the extent of the protection of designations of origin The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the entity in charge of defending the protected designation of origin (PDO) Champagne, detected the use of the sign “Champanillo” to identify a chain of tapas bars in Catalonia, as well as its use in domains, social networks and promotional materials. In the European Union, PDOs have a specific protection regime at Union level, set out in Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, which guarantees their defense against misuse in all Member States. The main legal challenge in this case was that the products in question were not comparable to Champagne, but rather catering services, which raised a key question: can there be an infringement of a PDO when the sign is used for services and not for products? LEGAL APPROACH The protection should extend to those uses that generate an evocation in the mind of the consumer The case was articulated on a central idea: the protection of designations of origin is not limited to identical or similar products, but should extend to those uses that generate an evocation in the mind of the consumer. If the use of the distinctive “Champanillo” led the average consumer to think directly of Champagne, the protection should be activated, regardless of whether it was used to identify tapas bars and not sparkling wines. Furthermore, this link in the consumer's mind also implied an unfair exploitation of the reputation associated with the Champagne designation of origin: the brand benefited from the prestige, recognition and value built by the PDO. This approach required going beyond traditional analysis and relying on the European framework (EU Regulation 1308/2013). Therefore, the case gave rise to a preliminary question raised by the Provincial Court of Barcelona before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which proved decisive in clarifying and specifying the limits of protection of designations of origin. CASE DEVELOPMENT A decade of litigation until the final decision The procedure extended for almost a decade and went through several instances until consolidating that change of approach. After an initial unfavorable ruling in the first instance, the Provincial Court of Barcelona raised the issue to the CJEU, shifting the debate from the similarity between products to the concept of evocation. Until that time, the Court of Justice had interpreted in several rulings - including the judgments of 7 June 2018, case C-44/17 and of 17 December 2020, case C-490/19 - the concept of evocation of a PDO, but had never ruled specifically on the question of whether the protection granted by designations of origin extends not only to behaviors related to products but also to services. The response of the CJEU, in its judgment of 9 September 2021 (case C-783/19) was decisive. He confirmed that the protection of designations of origin also extends to services, provided that the use of the sign creates a sufficiently direct link in the consumer with the protected designation. Based on that criterion, the Provincial Court reviewed the case and concluded that the use of “Champanillo” constituted an infringement by evocation. To this end, it did not limit itself to a nominal analysis, but assessed the set of circumstances: the clear phonetic and conceptual proximity between the signs, the incorporation of the term "champagne" in the controversial sign, its use in contexts linked to the consumption of beverages and, especially, the undue exploitation of the reputation associated with Champagne. RESULT The Supreme Court consolidates a criterion that redefines the scope of protection of designations of origin On April 8, 2026, the Supreme Court fully confirmed the sentence issued by the Provincial Court of Barcelona, ​​applying the doctrine established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This brought the procedure to an end, consolidating the approach adopted. Following the interpretation made by the CJEU, the judgment confirms that there is infringement by evocation of the Champagne PDO, even in the absence of identity or similarity between products, and that this protection also extends to services when the use of the sign generates a sufficiently direct link in the mind of the consumer. It also confirms that this type of use may involve an undue exploitation of the reputation associated with the designation of origin. In accordance with these principles, the Supreme Court confirms the order to cease the use of the “Champanillo” sign, the removal of materials and the cancellation of associated digital assets. Beyond its specific effects, the resolution marks a milestone in the interpretation of the concept of PDO recall in the Spanish legal system. The Supreme Court expressly incorporates the CJEU's criteria and integrates them into national judicial practice, consolidating a standard that broadens the scope of protection for designations of origin and strengthens their defense against indirect uses. This ruling not only provides legal certainty, but also sets a clear precedent for future cases, confirming that the protection of PDOs does not depend on the similarity between products, but on the ability of the sign to activate in the consumer an association with the protected designation. Carlos Morán, partner in the Legal area. The case has been led by Carlos Morán, partner in the Legal area of ​​ELZABURU, who has accompanied the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne since the beginning of the procedure, articulating the legal strategy throughout all its phases and contributing to the consolidation of this criterion. His career in defending the Champagne PDO has been internationally recognized by the Champagne Committee itself, with the appointment of Knight of the Order of the Coteaux of Champagne, a distinction that the Committee has awarded on several occasions to jurists who have stood out in the legal protection of this designation of origin at an international level.

Supreme Court Judgment of June 30, 2025, Ron Barceló (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:3307) 1. Facts: Several beverage distribution companies filed a lawsuit against Barceló Comercial Internacional, SA and Importaciones y Exportaciones de Varma, SA, requesting that it be declared that they had acted unlawfully by using their rights over the Ron Barceló trademark to prohibit the marketing of products with said trademark within the European Economic Area (EEA), incurring in acts of unfair competition and infringing European competition defense rules. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the acquisition of Ron Barceló from EEA suppliers at prices lower than those set by Spanish distributors was lawful since, as the goods originated in the EEA, the rights to the Ron Barceló trademark had been exhausted. The defendants opposed the claim, alleging that there was no exhaustion of rights, and filed a counterclaim exercising the action for infringement of the Ron Barceló trademarks in relation to the plaintiffs' sales of products with said trademark without their authorization. In the first instance, the European Union Trademark Court No. 1 of Alicante issued a judgment dismissing the claim in its entirety and upholding the counterclaim. In the second instance, the 8th Section of the Provincial Court of Alicante (European Union Trademark Court) essentially confirmed the first instance ruling, with some modifications to the content of the judgment. The Provincial Court considered that, although the lawsuit did not name it as such, what was being exercised in it was a negative action of infringement of the Ron Barceló trademark. Although this action is not regulated in the Trademark Law, it is contemplated in article 121.1 of the Patent Law, which the Court considers applicable by reference provided in the first additional provision of the Trademark Law. However, it dismisses the action because it considers that the necessary circumstances for the exhaustion of the trademark right were not present in the case. The plaintiffs filed an extraordinary appeal for procedural violation and cassation against the appeal judgment, which were entirely dismissed by the judgment under comment. 2. Rulings In their appeal, the plaintiffs raised several grounds for cassation regarding the issue of the trademark owner's consent to the marketing of products with the same in the EEA and the burden of proof regarding the existence of the exhaustion of the trademark right. The Supreme Court, relying on the copious jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on exhaustion, begins by recalling that, as a general rule, the CJU understands that the trademark holder has given his consent to market his products within the EEA when he has been able to control the marketing of the products by third parties, since this control allows safeguarding the essential function of the sign of identifying the commercial origin of the product. Furthermore, the Supreme Court acknowledges that consent can be tacit, but emphasizes that the Court of Justice has indicated that, in order to appreciate the existence of such tacit consent, certain prior, concomitant or subsequent elements and circumstances must be present that reveal with certainty the waiver of the trademark holder to oppose his exclusive right. And, in this case, the Supreme Court agrees with the Provincial Court that such certainty does not occur. Regarding the burden of proof, the appellants invoked the case law of the CJEU which establishes the reversal of the burden of proof in those cases in which imposing that burden on the alleged infringer allows the trademark holder to compartmentalize national markets, as may occur in cases where it markets its products in the EEA through an exclusive or selective distribution system. The Supreme Court reviews the CJEU's rulings on this issue and points out that the burden of proof for exhaustion varies depending on knowledge of the place of first marketing of the product: if it is unknown and there is a risk of market compartmentalization, the burden of proof will fall on the trademark holder and not on the parallel importer; however, if it is known from the outset that the product was first marketed outside the EEA and the trademark holder can prove it, there is a presumption that they have not consented to the subsequent entry of the products into the European market and it will be up to the parallel importer to prove that such consent has occurred. Based on these premises, in the case under consideration, the Supreme Court rejects the appeal of the plaintiffs, since it considers that they are making a bet on the issue since it has not been proven in the instance that Ron Barceló is distributed under an exclusive distribution regime nor that there is a risk of market compartmentalization. Finally, the Supreme Court also rejects the grounds for appeal that argued that the fact that an EEA distributor was identified in the original labeling of the products was a determining indication of the existence of tacit consent. The Court considers that it could be an indication to be taken into account along with others to reach a certain level of proof in relation to consent, but that on its own it is not sufficient to declare the existence of tacit consent. 3. Commentary The relevance of this ruling lies in the confirmation of the possibility, recognized on appeal by Section 8 of the Provincial Court of Alicante, of bringing a declaratory action of non-infringement -negatory or boastful action- in matters of trademark rights, equivalent to that contemplated in article 121.1 of the Patents Law. In this sense, the reference to the regulation established in that precept has important consequences, among them the requirement to comply with the requirement of prior request to the holder of the right in the terms of the second paragraph of the article. In this case, one of the...Read more

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 December 2025, Mio and Others (C-580/23 and C-795/23). 1. Facts The judgment stems from two preliminary questions resolved jointly that had been raised by courts in Sweden and Germany in relation to the infringement of intellectual property rights. In the first of the lawsuits, Asplund, a company that designs and manufactures home furnishings (in particular the "Palais Royal" dining tables) sued Mio, a company dedicated to the retail sale of furniture and household goods (including the "Cord" dining tables), in October 2021. The plaintiff argued that the "Palais Royal" tables were protected by copyright as works of applied art and that the "Cord" dining tables constituted an infringement of copyright, as they bore a strong resemblance to hers. Mesa Palais Royal Mio denied that the tables in the "Palais Royal" series were protected by copyright, arguing that these tables did not have sufficient originality to obtain the corresponding protection. According to Mio, the design of these tables is based on mere variations of previously known drawings or models that are listed in the register of designs and models registered in the European Union. In any case, even if the tables in the "Palais Royal" series were protected by copyright, such protection would be limited and restricted, and the differences between the two models of tables in question would be sufficient, in their view, to demonstrate that Mio's tables do not infringe copyright. The claim was upheld at first instance and it is the Swedish appeals body that refers the preliminary question to the Court of Justice. In the second lawsuit, the claim is filed by USM, a company that has been manufacturing and marketing for decades a modular furniture system (USM Haller) that is characterized by the fact that cylindrical tubes with high-gloss chrome are assembled by means of spherical joints to form a frame in which metal plates of different colors are attached. The structures thus created can be freely combined and mounted vertically and horizontally. USM Haller Furniture For its part, the defendant Konektra offers, through its online store, spare parts and expansion pieces for the USM Haller modular furniture system, which in shape, and mostly also in color, correspond to the components of USM. After initially limiting itself to the mere sale of spare parts, which USM did not oppose, Konektra remodeled its online store in 2017. Since 2018, Konektra's website has listed all the components needed for the complete assembly of USM Haller furniture and has also advertised the latter along with images of assembled furniture. In addition, Konektra offers its customers an assembly service to put together the loose pieces delivered into a complete piece of furniture, and its deliveries are accompanied by assembly instructions for putting together complete pieces of furniture. The lawsuit argues that Konektra, by manufacturing, offering, and marketing its own furniture system, identical to USM's, would be infringing its copyright on the USM Haller system as a work of applied art or, at the very least, would be committing an unlawful imitation from the point of view of competition law. In this litigation as well, the claim is upheld at first instance, but it is the court of cassation that raises the preliminary question. 2. Rulings In the first preliminary question, the German Supreme Court asks the CJEU whether there is a rule-exception relationship between the protection of designs and models and that of copyright which requires stricter requirements of originality to be imposed on works of applied art than on other types of works. The Court of Justice begins by recalling that the concept of "work" requires the concurrence of two cumulative elements: originality and sufficient expression. For an object to be considered original, it is both necessary and sufficient that it reflects the personality of its author, manifesting their free and creative decisions. When the creation of an object is determined by technical considerations, rules, or other requirements that leave no room for the exercise of creative freedom, the object cannot be considered to have the originality necessary to constitute a work. The CJEU then establishes a clear distinction between the criteria applicable to each protection regime, recalling that for designs and models an objective criterion based on novelty and uniqueness is applied, while for copyright a subjective criterion based on originality is applied, understood as a reflection of the author's personality through free and creative decisions. From the above, three fundamental consequences can be drawn: i) objects protected by a design or model are not, in principle, comparable to those that constitute works protected by copyright; ii) there is no automatic link between the granting of protection under the regulations on designs and models and the granting of protection under copyright; and iii) the requirements for such protection should not be confused: novelty and singularity, on the one hand, and originality, on the other. The conclusion reached by the CJEU from this reasoning is that, although the protection reserved for designs or models and that guaranteed by copyright are not mutually exclusive and can be granted cumulatively to the same object, such accumulation is limited to certain cases. Specifically, it is required that the author has created a unique work that bears the imprint of his personality, which as such is protected under Directive 2001/29/EC. However, there is no rule-exception relationship between the two protections that justifies imposing stricter requirements on applied arts. In the first and second preliminary questions in case C-580/23 and the second and third in case C-795/23, the referring courts ...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.

Supreme Court Judgment of February 26, 2025, Farola Latina (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:735) 1. Facts The sentence stems from the lawsuit filed in Barcelona by a Spanish architect against the company Ashghal and the State of Qatar, for infringement of intellectual property rights over a certain design work of a lamppost model "LATINA". The author argued that her work had been “copied and forged” by the defendants in the installation of streetlights on Al Waab Avenue in Doha (Qatar). In addition to the removal of the streetlights, the lawsuit sought compensation of 100.000 euros. LATINA model streetlamp installed on Avenida de Barcelona (Terrassa). Source: Urbidermis The conflict dates back to 2005, when the first contacts were made between Santa & Cole (a company that exploited the plaintiff's designs in several countries) and the public entity Ashgal, of Qatar, with the aim of carrying out a comprehensive proposal for the lighting of Al Waab Avenue, in Doha. The failure of the lengthy negotiations motivated the action that was finally filed. The defendants raised a declinatory plea for lack of international judicial jurisdiction, which was accepted by the court. The plaintiff appealed this decision and the Provincial Court issued an order on March 12, 2015 (ECLI:ES:APB:2015:1256A) revoking it and dismissing the declinatory plea. The lawsuit was resumed, and the claim was partially upheld by the Court, reducing the compensation to 50.000 euros (ECLI:ES:JMB:2018:8060). The judgment having been appealed by both parties, the fifteenth section of the Provincial Court of Barcelona issued a judgment on March 6, 2020 (ECLI:ES:APB:2020:2644) in which the two appeals were partially upheld and the sentence was left in the following terms: the sentence was limited to Ashgal, acquitting the State of Qatar; only the right to the paternity of the work and the right to its integrity were considered to have been infringed, but not the right to disclosure; the amount of compensation was set at the sum of 100.000 euros. The appeal ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court by the defendants, in a document that raises 33 grounds of procedural infringement and 4 grounds of cassation. 2. Pronouncements The first issue raised in the appeal is the violation of the provisions of the rules relating to the scope of Spanish jurisdiction (article 52.1.11 of the Civil Procedure Law). The Supreme Court acknowledges that the reasoning presented in the appealed judgment demonstrates “a profound knowledge of the case law of the CJEU,” but considers that “the inaccuracy of some of its premises leads to the conclusion reached (affirming the international jurisdiction of Spanish courts) being incorrect.” As a preliminary matter, the judgment notes that, although Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereinafter, Regulation 44/2001 or Brussels I Regulation) is not directly applicable, the case law of the CJEU interpreting it is useful because the rules on international jurisdiction contained in the Organic Law of the Judiciary are based on the regulations of the 1968 Brussels Convention, the provisions of which were incorporated, with few modifications, into Regulation 44/2001. The judgment of the CJEU of 3 October 2013, C-170/12, Pinckney, citing previous judgments, held that, as an exception to the fundamental principle set out in Article 2(1) of Regulation 44/2001, which confers jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State in whose territory the defendant is domiciled, Chapter II, Section 2, of that Regulation provides for a number of special conferrals of jurisdiction, including that provided for in Article 5(3) of that Regulation. Since the jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the damaging event occurred or could occur is a special rule of jurisdiction, it must be interpreted strictly, without allowing an interpretation that goes beyond the cases explicitly contemplated in the Regulation. The expression "place where the damaging event occurred or could occur", which appears in Article 5, point 3, of the Regulation, refers at the same time to the place where the damage materialized and to the place of the causal event that caused that damage, so that the action may be exercised, at the plaintiff's choice, before the courts of either of those two places. The rule of competence established in Article 5, point 3, of the Regulation is based on the existence of a particularly close connection between the dispute and the court of the place where the damaging event has occurred or may occur, which justifies an attribution of competence to that court for reasons of good administration of justice and proper conduct of the proceedings. The CJEU has also declared, in the judgment of 19 September 1995, C-364/93, Marinari, that, although it is admitted that the concept of "place where the damaging event occurred", within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention (equivalent to Article 5(3) of the Convention) 5.3 of Regulation 44/2001), may refer both to the place where the damage occurred and to the place of the event causing it; this concept cannot be interpreted in an extensive way to encompass any place where the harmful consequences of an event that has already caused damage that actually occurred elsewhere may be experienced. Moreover, in the judgment of 10 June 2004, C-168/02, Kronhofer declared that this provision must be interpreted to mean that the expression "place where the damaging event occurred" does not include the place of the plaintiff's domicile where the "center of his assets" is located, simply because the plaintiff suffered economic damage in that place as a result of the loss of part of his assets that occurred and was suffered in another Contracting State. The ruling goes on to reiterate that...Read more

The organization of cultural and festive events often involves the commissioning or use of creative works, such as posters, illustrations, or graphic compositions. These creations are protected by intellectual property regulations, which require authorization from the author for their use. A ruling issued by a commercial court has reminded that the substantial reproduction of a work without permission, even if formal variations are introduced, can constitute plagiarism and generate economic liability for the user. Facts of the case The litigation arises after verifying that the promotional poster of the Carnivals of the Don Benito City Council (Badajoz) had allegedly been plagiarized, or at least inspired by the one that Torres Franquis had designed for the same festivities, but nine years earlier (2016) and for the town of Santa Cruz de Tenerife for which he was paid 1.630 euros. The similarity affected the main element of the design: a "mahi" fish represented by a characteristic graphic style that had become a visual symbol of the original event. The poster used by the town in Extremadura maintained the same central motif, simply modifying colors, adding some decorative background elements and replacing the typography. After sending several communications without receiving a response, the creator filed a lawsuit requesting: recognition of the infringement of his copyright, the removal and destruction of all copies, both in physical and online format, and compensation for the damages suffered. Criteria applied by the court: Accessory changes do not exclude plagiarism. The magistrate considered that the modifications introduced by the city council lacked sufficient creative substance to generate a new work. Despite these modifications, the essential features of the original design remained: the same main element, a matching graphic configuration, and a substantially identical structure. The resemblance was therefore recognizable and relevant from a legal point of view. On that basis, the resolution considers that the use of the poster without the author's authorization constitutes an infringement of copyright under the Intellectual Property Law. Furthermore, the infringement of moral rights is also evident, particularly the right to the integrity of the work and the recognition of authorship. Ownership of rights The Don Benito City Council argued that ownership of the rights would belong to the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, since it was the one that commissioned the poster at the time. The judge rejected this argument and noted that the commission did not entail the acquisition of full ownership of the exploitation rights. Thus, the author remained the original holder of the rights, while the city council only had a right of use under the agreed terms, without the power to freely dispose of the work. Compensation and measures adopted The sentence set a total compensation of 6.500 euros, differentiating two concepts: Patrimonial damage: 500 euros, equivalent to the amount that the author would foreseeably have received had he authorized the use. Moral damages: 000 euros, taking into account the public dissemination of the poster, its institutional use and the professional career of the creator. Furthermore, it was agreed: the immediate cessation of use, the withdrawal and destruction of physical copies, the elimination of digital publications, the publication of the resolution in local and regional media, and the imposition of costs ex officio. Practical implications The case highlights that the concept of "inspiration" has clear legal limits in matters of intellectual property. When a new creation reproduces the essential and recognizable elements of a previous work, even if it incorporates accessory or decorative changes, it cannot be considered independent. Simply modifying colors, fonts, or secondary details does not alter this conclusion if the substantial identity of the design is maintained. In such cases, the use of the work without authorization constitutes unauthorized exploitation and, therefore, an infringement of copyright. The analyzed resolution confirms this criterion by finding plagiarism despite the variations introduced and by recognizing both the patrimonial and moral damage derived from the institutional use of the poster.   Proper management of intellectual property rights and respect for authorship are essential elements to prevent unauthorized use of creative works and the resulting economic and legal liabilities arising from their improper exploitation. Elzaburu advises on the protection, defense and litigation of copyright and other intangible assets, with permanently updated knowledge of the applicable regulations and jurisprudence.   Carlos Morán, partner lawyer specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition at Elzaburu.

Seven professionals from the firm have been recognized in this year's edition. Madrid, January 29, 2026. – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has been recognized with the Gold Position in Prosecution and the Silver Position in Litigation in the World Trademark Review 2026 directory, the international guide that distinguishes the most outstanding firms and professionals in brand strategy and management. Regarding the firm's professionals, the guide highlights Luis Baz with the Prosecution Gold award, as an expert in trademark prosecution, describing him as “a profound strategist with extensive experience in availability searches and global registrability assessments, which guarantees the protection of trademarks and ensures their development and growth.” It also highlights Miguel Ángel Medina, “who exercises absolute mastery in trademark law with a comprehensive commercial perspective,” and Javier Úbeda-Romero, whom it identifies as a leading figure in trademark prosecution; both are recognized in this year's edition with the Prosecution Silver award. The board also recognizes Carlos Morán, “the architect of dismantling counterfeiting networks with surgical precision,” and Enrique Armijo, “a litigator of formidable reputation who masters litigation thanks to his decades of experience,” with the Litigation Silver award. Cristina Arroyo receives the Prosecution Bronze award “for her understanding and ability to connect complex legal issues with broader business objectives, providing solutions that are legally sound and commercially astute.” And Fernando Ilardia is recognized with the Litigation Bronze award “for his ability to bring a rare combination of technical depth and pragmatism to brand strategy, as well as for his capacity to balance rigor with market realities.” WTR 100 highlights that “Elzaburu is undoubtedly the best intellectual property firm in Spain and the one that offers the most consistent level of excellence. What sets it apart is its comprehensive approach to intellectual property: it brings together under one roof legal, technical and strategic expertise, as well as a deep understanding of how intellectual property works in real business environments.”

Today we speak with Carlos Morán, a partner and lawyer specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition at Elzaburu, about a recent Supreme Court ruling that has generated interest in the field of copyright and co-authorship in artists' workshops. Next, Carlos answers a series of questions that help clarify the practical scope of this resolution and the implications it may have for artists, collaborators, and industry professionals. Context: In the judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of September 30, 2025, the issue of determining the authorship of works of art created in the context of an artist's workshop is addressed practically for the first time, but the reality is that the appeal had very little scope and that the Supreme Court essentially confirms the appeal judgment issued by Section 28 of the Provincial Court of Madrid on March 21, 2021. The case before the Supreme Court was hampered from the outset by the evidentiary activity carried out in the first instance and by the forcefulness of the appeal sentence. The Supreme Court adds little. The cassation ruling accepts the facts declared proven in light of the evidence presented and the legal pronouncements of the Provincial Court. The limitations of the appeal process have done the rest. Supreme Court criteria for differentiating between technical assistance and creativity contributed More than criteria, the Supreme Court has taken into account the facts that emerge from the evidence presented, namely: The plaintiff was an artist of proven professional qualification. The salary he received for his collaboration with the defendant was considerably high. The plaintiff worked alone in the studio for many hours a day and the defendant used to travel quite a lot. Under these conditions it seems logical to think that the plaintiff, when putting the defendant's ideas into the painting, enjoyed creative freedom to also express her own personality. The Supreme Court ruling recalls at several points that, for the Provincial Court, whose criteria on the facts and evidence must be respected, the tasks performed by the plaintiff were “highly relevant” and not merely “accessory” or “complementary” to those of the defendant. Employment relationship and recognition of co-authorship: possible conflicts The existence of an employment relationship between the parties declared in a previous judgment of the social jurisdiction has not been taken into account by the Supreme Court due to a formal issue: judgments of the social jurisdiction do not bind a civil court. Somehow, the facts and evidence directly produced in the civil lawsuit prevail over the precedents derived from the labor court ruling. That said, it is reasonable to think that the existence of an employment relationship does not prejudge, for better or for worse, the reality of the facts that may be proven on a case-by-case basis. Another matter is that the employment contract, as we will discuss later, may explicitly state or emphasize certain conditions or characteristics that contradict the idea that the tasks performed by the assistant or collaborator involve creativity. Relevance of executing the work alone in the determination of co-authorship The creation of the work alone by the co-author is a further circumstance that demonstrates to the court, in the set of all the concurrent ones, that she imprinted on the works or was in a position to imprint her own personality. The ability to choose is best exercised in solitude. Obligations of the main artist after the recognition of co-authorship We are faced with an essentially declaratory judgment (the attribution to the plaintiff of her status as co-author of the 221 works) which comprises a single condemnatory pronouncement: the defendant must publish an announcement at his expense in a nationally distributed art magazine with the news that the co-authorship of the plaintiff has been attributed to the 221 works listed in the judgment. Impact of the ruling on contemporary artists' workshops: whether working with collaborators or assistants. Artist workshops represent a constant in the history of art and are not called into question by this legal precedent. The Supreme Court's ruling, in fact, expressly addresses any misinterpretation of its pronouncements and any attempt to extrapolate or generalize its doctrine to the current situation of any artist's workshop. At this point the judgment expressly warns: it is not a matter of saying that any workshop technical assistant can be considered the author of an artistic work in whose execution he has intervened, but that “in this particular case” the plaintiff, in the solitude of the workshop, was able to express the plaintiff's ideas by making his own decisions as a result of his personality. This does not preclude the possibility of drawing lessons from the matter: First, that the artist who works in a workshop setting with collaborators and assistants must be concerned with explicitly stating in the contract he signs with them the circumstances that emphasize that the creative part, both in the ideation and in the execution of the painting, corresponds to the artist, that the contribution of the collaborators is merely technical and that they lack freedom of choice or criteria for the creation of the work. The second is that these contractual principles must be put into practice by the artist in the studio, truly assuming the tasks that concern him beyond their reflection on paper. Third, in the event that the matter goes to court, the evidence should not be underestimated in the first instance, nor should contradictions be made, nor should overbearing attitudes be adopted during questioning. It appears that the witness testimony and the questioning of the defendant may have played a decisive role in the matter. Consequences of co-authorship on the intellectual authorship of the main artist From a practical point of view, it does not seem that outside of the reputational aspect the sentence has any further effects on the artist. Everything indicates that...Read more

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.”