A domain may seem like something small, a mere web address. But in practice, they directly affect a company's online identity. When a company builds its digital identity, the domain name ceases to be a simple technical element. It is part of their brand, their reputation and, often, the first contact with customers, suppliers or users. Therefore, when a third party registers a domain identical or very similar to someone else's trademark, the problem is not limited to a formal issue. It can affect web traffic, sales, consumer confidence, and even the security of the business itself. This phenomenon, known as cybersquatting, is not new. However, it remains fully in force. In fact, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administered 6.282 cases relating to domain names in 2025, the highest number since it began providing this service 25 years ago. What is cybersquatting and why does it affect brands? Cybersquatting generally consists of registering a domain name that reproduces, imitates, or improperly approximates another person's brand. In many cases, the objective is speculative: to later sell the domain to the legitimate owner of the trademark. In others, the risk is even greater: redirecting traffic, capturing data, impersonating the company, or taking advantage of its reputation. The very nature of the domain registration system allows, unlike with trademarks, registration without a prior examination to analyze possible conflicts with prior rights. If the domain is available, you can register it. This explains why small variations can have significant consequences. Adding a letter, changing an extension, introducing a hyphen, or using a similar spelling may be enough to create a domain that is technically different but commercially very close to the original sign. For a company, the damage can occur on several levels: loss of visits, confusion among customers, reputational damage, exposure to fraud, or interference in marketing campaigns. Domain names and brands: distinct assets, connected risks. It is important to distinguish between two ideas. A domain name is not, in itself, a brand. Its main function is to identify an address on the Internet. A trademark, on the other hand, identifies the business origin of products or services and grants its owner an exclusive right within certain limits. However, in practice, both assets are closely connected. A strong brand usually needs a consistent digital presence. And a poorly protected digital presence can become a weak point for the brand strategy. Therefore, domain management should not be approached as a purely IT or administrative issue. It is part of the protection of the company's intangible assets. Just as you check the availability of a brand before launching it on the market, it's also important to analyze which domains should be registered, which extensions are relevant, and which variations could pose a risk. The UDRP: an out-of-court way to recover domains To respond to this type of conflict, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, known as UDRP, was created. This is an out-of-court procedure that allows trademark holders to claim the transfer or cancellation of domains registered in bad faith. The procedure is usually faster and more efficient than going directly to court. Furthermore, it allows disputes to be resolved regardless of the location of the parties. WIPO's new accelerated service: a response to the time factor. In this context, the introduction of an accelerated service within the UDRP is understood. The possibility of obtaining a decision within a maximum of 30 days, in certain cases, responds to a very specific need: to reduce the time during which a potentially infringing domain remains active. This is not about replacing the standard procedure, which will still be sufficient in many cases, but about offering an alternative for those cases where speed is especially relevant. For example, when the domain is causing actual harm or when there is a clear risk to a company's online identity. In these scenarios, every day counts. When might it make sense to use the accelerated route? The accelerated route requires certain conditions such as the absence of procedural incidents, agile response from the parties and effective collaboration from the registrar. Therefore, we are not dealing with an automatic mechanism, but with an option designed for situations in which certain conditions are met. Furthermore, this route involves an additional cost. This makes it necessary to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the urgency justifies resorting to the accelerated service or whether the ordinary procedure is sufficient. Protecting your brand online requires anticipation and speed. The evolution of the UDRP and the incorporation of an accelerated route reflect an adaptation of the system to the current reality. The digital environment is faster, more exposed, and more complex than it was 25 years ago. Conflict resolution mechanisms must respond to that same logic. Cybersquatting persists because registering a domain remains easy and cheap, while the value of a brand and its online presence continues to grow. In that balance, instruments such as the UDRP remain essential for rights holders. At ELZABURU we help innovative companies to protect, manage and enhance the value of their intangible assets, supporting them in the protection of their brands and domain names through strategic advice that ranges from registration and portfolio management to monitoring and defending their rights in any jurisdiction.   Luis Beneyto, Partner in the Trademarks area at ELZABURU Frequently Asked Questions about Cybersquatting and Domain Names What is Cybersquatting? Cybersquatting is the registration of a domain name that reproduces or imitates someone else's brand, usually for speculative purposes, to divert traffic or to take advantage of the reputation of that brand. Is a domain name the same as a brand? No. A domain identifies an address on the Internet, while a...Read more

The energy transition has become one of the major drivers of technological innovation on a global scale. For decades, the debate has focused on how to generate energy more cleanly. Today, the focus has shifted to an equally critical issue: how to store, manage, and transport that energy efficiently. In this new scenario, batteries have taken on a leading role. Data from the latest State of Energy Innovation report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) clearly shows this trend: around 40% of energy-related patents are linked to storage technologies. From the perspective of industrial property, this data reflects an increasingly visible reality: energy storage has become one of the most competitive fields in the current technological landscape. Energy storage as the cornerstone of innovation The growth in applications in areas such as electricity generation, new materials or power electronics, but especially in energy storage, is not accidental. This is explained by the convergence of several structural factors that are transforming the global energy system: Progressive electrification of mobility. Expansion of renewable energies. Need for more flexible and resilient electrical networks. As a result, in the field of storage, innovation is shifting towards solutions capable of: Improving energy density. Reduce loading times. Increase battery life. New materials for more efficient batteries Much of the current innovation in energy storage is focused on the development of advanced materials. The goal is to improve three key variables: energy density (more storage capacity), charging speed, and battery lifespan. Although lithium remains the predominant material in many current solutions, research is moving towards new chemical compositions, alloys, and advanced materials capable of delivering better performance without compromising system safety or stability. In this context, elements such as rare earth elements and other critical materials are acquiring increasing strategic importance. Their role is not limited to the electrical or magnetic properties they provide, but also to their impact on global supply chains and the geopolitics of technological resources. The increase in patents in storage technologies From the perspective of industrial property, the development of batteries is reflected in a sustained growth of patent applications related to energy storage. This increase is not limited to a single technological area. On the contrary, innovation is distributed across different complementary fields: conductive materials with lower electrical losses, more efficient generator designs based on permanent magnets, and battery architectures that optimize energy transfer and storage. This multidisciplinary nature explains why inventions in this sector combine Chemistry, Electronics and Software. For patent professionals, this evolution poses new challenges, both in assessing the patentability of inventions and in the strategic management of increasingly complex rights portfolios. Electric vehicles and batteries: an inseparable relationship. One of the sectors where the evolution of batteries is most visible is the automotive sector. The range of electric vehicles and charging times depend directly on technological development in energy storage. Every improvement in energy density or charging efficiency has an immediate impact on the commercial viability of these technologies. Therefore, the automotive industry has become one of the most active players in the race to register patents related to batteries. Large manufacturers, technology companies and research centers are competing to develop solutions that will increase storable kilowatt-hours and optimize energy efficiency. In this context, patent protection becomes a key element to ensure competitive advantages in a highly innovative market. Innovation in electrical networks and energy transport The energy transition does not depend solely on the development of new batteries. It also requires significant advances in the transport and distribution of electricity. Reducing losses in electricity networks is a priority from both an economic and an environmental point of view. Therefore, a significant part of current research is focused on developing new conductive materials capable of minimizing energy dissipation in high-voltage cables. Although these innovations receive less media attention than other emerging technologies, their impact on the overall efficiency of the energy system is fundamental. Industrial property as an indicator of technological competition: The trend in patent applications offers a privileged perspective to understand where innovation is heading. In the energy sector, the growing number of patents related to storage reflects intense technological competition among companies, research centers, and countries. Industrial property not only protects inventions, but also acts as a strategic tool to consolidate positions in global markets. In sectors where innovation cycles are becoming increasingly rapid, an appropriate protection strategy is essential to transform scientific advances into real competitive advantages. Batteries as a strategic asset in the energy transition. The recent evolution of the energy sector shows that the transition towards a more sustainable model is not being defined solely in wind farms or solar plants. Much of this transformation is taking place in laboratories and research centers where new materials, storage architectures, and energy management technologies are being developed. In this context, batteries have gone from being just another technical component to becoming a strategic asset that shapes innovation, investment, and industrial policies for the coming years. Understanding this dynamic is essential for technology companies, investors, public administrations, and intellectual property professionals involved in the development of these technologies.   Bosco de la Vega, European Patent Agent in Elzaburu.

A song can start in a thousand ways, from some notes in your notebook to an improvisation in a rehearsal with your group. But just when it seems to be finished, the big question arises: how do you register a song to protect it? In Spain, a song is protected by copyright from the moment it is created. It is not necessary to register it in any registry for that protection to exist. Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, which approves the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, recognizes that the author of a work is the holder of a series of personal and patrimonial rights from the moment of its creation. Therefore, registering a song is not mandatory. However, it can be highly recommended. Above all, because when a conflict arises, it is not enough to say "I did this". You have to be able to test it. What is the purpose of registering a song? Registration serves, primarily, to establish the authorship of a work, proof with declared ownership and a certain date. Pursuant to Article 145 of the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, it is presumed, unless proven otherwise, that the registered rights exist and belong to their holder in the manner reflected in the registry entry. And this, in the musical field, can be quite important. Many works are born collectively, without much (or any) documentation. One person brings a melody, another develops the lyrics, another builds the foundation, and another introduces arrangements that end up being recognizable in the final song. As long as everything is going well, nobody usually dwells too much on those details. The problem arises when the song starts generating income, when a sync proposal is received for a campaign, when a label asks to sign a contract, or when someone leaves the project. At that point, having well-documented authorship ceases to be a formality and becomes a practical matter. What can be protected in a song? When talking about registering a song, it is important to keep in mind that a musical creation can incorporate different protected elements and that not all of them generate the same rights. A song can include lyrics, a melody, an instrumental composition, arrangements, a performance, and a recording. From a legal point of view, each of these elements may have its own relevance. Copyright on the musical work The musical work (the composition and, where applicable, the lyrics) is protected by copyright. These rights belong to their creators or to those who have legitimately acquired ownership through a contract. The protection applies to the intellectual creation itself, regardless of the specific version that is subsequently interpreted or recorded. Related rights over recording and performance When that musical work is performed and fixed in a recording, other rights besides copyright come into play. On the one hand, performing artists may hold rights over their performance. On the other hand, the resulting recording (the so-called phonogram or master) may generate rights in favor of the phonographic producer, when one exists. This distinction is especially important in musical practice: the musical work is not the same as the master recording that we usually listen to on digital platforms, radio, or physical media. Each one may belong to different owners and require different authorizations for its exploitation. How to register a song in the Intellectual Property Registry One of the usual ways to register a song in Spain is to go to the Intellectual Property Registry, whose process requires: identifying the work, indicating who its authors or owners are, providing the corresponding documentation, presenting a copy that allows recognition of the creation; in the case of musical works, it may be necessary to provide the score or other materials that allow identification of the composition. If the song is a collaboration, it's best to draw up a contract beforehand. When a song is composed as a group, it's advisable to agree on who contributed to what and in what percentage under a contract, to avoid problems in the face of possible future conflicts. An internal agreement helps to regulate situations such as: the distribution of rights and income, the use of the song, decision-making regarding licenses, the departure of a member of the group, and the possibility that a brand, an audiovisual production company, or a label may use the work. And after registering the song? Once the work is protected, the next question is how to manage the rights that may arise as the song is used, distributed, or commercially exploited. Depending on the project, different actors may come into play: collective management entities, music publishers, phonographic producers, digital platforms, record labels or companies interested in using the music in advertising campaigns, audiovisual productions or video games. In Spain, collective management is mainly channeled through SGAE (authors and publishers), AIE (performing artists) and AGEDI (phonogram producers), entities that are responsible for collecting and distributing the rights generated by the use of music. It is not necessary to resolve all these issues from the outset, especially in projects that are just starting out. However, knowing them helps to avoid mistakes and make better use of opportunities that may arise. The group's name also matters. Protecting the song is essential, but it's not always enough. If the musical project has an artistic name, a group name, a logo, or a recognizable visual identity, it may be advisable to consider protecting it as a trademark, as we saw in this analysis of the trademark strategy of Rosalía's latest album. Copyright protects musical works. A trademark, on the other hand, protects a sign that identifies a business origin. In practice, it can be useful to prevent third parties from using the same or a similar name for musical activities, entertainment, merchandising, or other products related to the project. Furthermore, the brand is territorial. If a group begins to grow outside of Spain or sells products associated with its name, the protection strategy must be considered with a certain degree of care...Read more

The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) and the Centre for Technological Development and Innovation (CDTI) have signed an agreement to promote the use of industrial property rights in research, development and innovation projects. Among its most relevant measures is a 30% discount on certain technological information services for entities linked to CDTI programs and tenders. What changes with the new agreement between the OEPM and the CDTI? The agreement creates a collaborative framework to connect innovation funding with the protection of its results. Its objective is to bring industrial property closer to companies and other agents of the Spanish innovation system. The agreement was signed on May 24, 2026 and published in the Official State Gazette on June 30, 2026. Its duration will be four years from the date it becomes effective, with the possibility of extension for up to four additional years. Who will be able to benefit from the 30% discount? The discount is aimed at entities that are beneficiaries of CDTI aid and those awarded innovative public procurement tenders managed by this organization. The reduction will be applied to the price of Patent Technology Reports and Technology Watch Reports requested by these entities. The agreement refers for its application to Order IET/1186/2015, which establishes the public prices of the OEPM. What can these reports be used for? The agreement positions Patent Technology Reports and Technology Watch Reports as support tools for decision-making in aid programs and innovative public procurement actions. More training and support in industrial property. The discount is just one of the measures planned. The OEPM will collaborate in information sessions and training activities aimed at CDTI staff, the entities benefiting from its programs (with a specific reference to NEOTEC) and the organizations adhering to the PIDI Network. A mechanism is also planned to resolve queries on industrial property and the joint development of contract models, guides, manuals and protocols that promote knowledge transfer. For its part, the CDTI will promote the protection and registration of intangible assets generated by the beneficiaries of its programs. How will the discount be requested? For the time being, the agreement expressly recognizes the 30% reduction, but does not detail the procedure for applying it. The text published in the BOE does not indicate what documentation must be submitted, how the status of beneficiary or awardee will be accredited, or whether the discount will be applied automatically. It will be necessary to pay attention to the next updates that the OEPM and/or the CDTI may publish to learn in more detail how this discount will be applied and what steps interested entities should follow. Industrial property from the start of the innovative project. The agreement reinforces a relevant idea for companies that develop technology: financing, protection and transfer of results should not be managed as isolated processes. Analyzing the state of the art, assessing patentability, and defining which assets should be protected can help guide investment, collaboration, and commercialization decisions. The discount facilitates access for certain entities to technological information tools, but its usefulness will depend on its integration into a broader intangible asset management strategy. At ELZABURU we advise innovative companies and entities on the identification, protection and exploitation of their R&D&I results, as well as on the design of industrial property strategies adapted to each project.   Ruth Sánchez, Partner in the Patents area of ​​Elzaburu and European Patent Agent.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has rejected the European Union trademark application LUX filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. The decision is based on the perception that the Romanian-speaking public in the European Union would have of the term, considering that it would not be understood as an indication of business origin, but as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality or select products and services. The case is relevant for any company or creator seeking to protect a name throughout the European Union. The unitary nature of the European trademark means that an obstacle found in one part of the territory may prevent registration for all Member States. What products and services did the LUX brand intend to protect? The European Union Intellectual Property Office has rejected in the first instance the application for European Union trademark no. 019198973 LUX filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. This application sought to distinguish products and services in classes 9, 25 and 41, which include, among others, musical recordings, downloadable audiovisual content, records, vinyl records, DVDs, glasses, smartphones, cameras, headphones, smartwatches, electronic publications, clothing, footwear and musical entertainment services and live performances. The application therefore covered various lines linked to the musical activity and the commercial exploitation of the artist's image, from recordings and digital publications to technological products, fashion and live performances. The procedure began with an initial objection communicated by the EUIPO on July 10, 2025. The applicant submitted observations on September 11 of that year. After examining them, the Office issued a second communication of reasons for refusal on February 3, 2026, in which it elaborated on its analysis in greater detail. As no new observations were submitted within the allotted time, the EUIPO maintained its objection and rejected the application on July 8, 2026. Why does the EUIPO consider that LUX cannot be registered as a trademark? The Office has considered that the LUX sign is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness for the Romanian-speaking public of the European Union. According to the EUIPO, the public would perceive the term as a direct reference to "luxury", "superior quality", "select" or "exceptional", and not as an indication of business origin. Consequently, the Office understands that LUX conveys a promotional or laudatory message applicable to the products and services requested, including musical recordings, audiovisual content, clothing, footwear and entertainment services. In other words, the consumer would not see in LUX a brand that identifies the business origin of those products or services, but an indication that they have a premium, exclusive or high quality character. The distinctive character is precisely what allows a brand to fulfill its essential function, which is none other than to enable the consumer to associate products or services with a specific company and differentiate them from those of other operators. A promotional expression is not automatically excluded from registration, but it must also be able to act as an indication of business origin. According to the EUIPO, this does not happen in the case of LUX. For the relevant audience, the term would simply highlight a positive quality of the products and services, without incorporating any unexpected element, linguistic play or particular construction that forces the consumer to make an interpretive effort. Therefore, the descriptive and laudatory perception would prevail over the distinctive function of a brand. Is the denial based solely on the Romanian public? Yes. Although in its first communication the EUIPO referred to both the English-speaking and Romanian-speaking publics, in its second communication the objection focused solely on the perception of the Romanian-speaking public of the European Union. The final decision refers to the reasons set out in that second communication, which the Office considers an integral part of the resolution. This point is especially relevant because it confirms one of the peculiarities of the European Union trademark, which is that if there is a reason for refusal in one part of the Union, the application can be refused in its entirety. In this case, the EUIPO considered it sufficient that the term LUX was perceived by the Romanian-speaking public as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality, or select products and services. What arguments did the applicant present? The applicant argued that the requested sign was LUX, and not the English term "luxury", so the two signs could not be automatically equated. He also questioned the linguistic sources used by the Office and argued that LUX could be understood with other meanings, in particular as the unit of measurement for illumination or as the Latin term for “light”. Furthermore, it cited the existence of other trademark registrations incorporating the LUX element, both before the EUIPO and the Romanian office, and noted that an equivalent application had been accepted for publication in the United Kingdom. The EUIPO rejected these arguments. In particular, it considered that the fact that LUX could have other meanings did not prevent appreciating its descriptive or laudatory character if, for the relevant public, one of its possible perceptions was that of luxury, superior quality or select character of the products and services requested. The Office also noted that the European Union trademark system is autonomous and is not bound by previous decisions of the EUIPO itself, national offices of Member States or offices of third countries. Although such background information may be taken into consideration, each application must be examined in light of its specific products and services, the relevant public, and the circumstances existing at the time of the examination. Therefore, the prior acceptance of other signs incorporating LUX was not sufficient to alter the Office's conclusion in this case. Is the denial of the LUX trademark final? No. The decision...Read more

What happens when a stadium hosting a World Cup match bears the name of a brand that does not officially sponsor the competition? The controversy surrounding some of the stadiums for the 2026 World Cup reflects this tension well, as many sports venues are typically identified by logos associated with major brands. Behind this situation are the so-called naming rights agreements, through which a company acquires the right to associate its brand with the name of a stadium for a certain period of time in exchange for financial compensation. These contracts constitute an important source of financing for the owners of the venues and, at the same time, a powerful positioning tool for the sponsoring companies, who seek to have the public immediately identify the stadium with their brand. In the recent competition, the event organizers required the omission of the use of such trademarks and the use of neutral names. This sets a playing field in which industrial property, existing naming rights agreements, the 2026 World Cup sponsorship program, and international broadcasts of a global sporting event coexist. Why do some stadiums change their names during the World Cup? The organization requires the stadiums selected to host the matches to change their names to prevent brands that are not sponsors of the event from appearing to be officially associated with the tournament. The World Cup has a sponsorship program based on granting exclusive commercial exploitation rights for certain categories of products and services. This exclusivity is one of the main assets of sports sponsorship, since those who acquire the status of official sponsor not only seek to gain visibility during the event, but also to prevent competitors or third parties from benefiting from its media impact without having assumed the cost of that investment. That's why organizers implement "clean site" policies. Under this criterion, the spaces linked to the competition must be free of distinctive signs and advertising elements unrelated to the official sponsorship program. This requirement can affect indoor advertising, signage, facades, supports visible from the stands, press areas, and, in some cases, the stadium's name itself. The aim is not to permanently eliminate the commercial identity or question the validity of the naming rights agreements, but to temporarily suspend its visibility while the stadium is integrated into the official tournament environment. In this way, the commercial exclusivity agreed with the official sponsors is preserved and third parties are prevented from obtaining an indirect association with the competition. Where is the link with industrial property? The link lies in the coexistence of different trademark rights and in the use of distinctive signs in an event subject to a commercial exclusivity regime. Industrial property protects trademarks, names and distinctive signs that identify the business origin of products or services. A World Cup brings together the official brands of the competition, the brands of authorized sponsors, licensing rights and naming rights agreements that commercially identify the stadiums. The conflict arises when a brand outside the group of official sponsors gains visibility within the perimeter of the event. This exhibition acquires special value due to the international dissemination of broadcasts, photographs, and informative and digital content of the tournament, which can generate in the public the perception of a commercial link with the competition. However, this presence does not generally correspond to an illicit use of the brand, but to the legitimate exercise of a naming rights agreement previously signed with the owner or manager of the premises. The difficulty lies in reconciling that contract with the obligations assumed by the venue towards the organizer and with the exclusivity rights granted to the official sponsors. From a branding perspective, naming rights agreements aim to consolidate a stable association between a brand and a sports venue. This continuity helps the public to spontaneously identify the stadium with the sponsoring brand and is one of the main factors justifying the investment made. Therefore, successive name changes or the temporary use of neutral names during major competitions do not weaken the brand in a legal sense nor affect the validity of trademark rights, but they can reduce the effectiveness of the distinctive and advertising function pursued by these agreements, by making it difficult for the consumer to maintain an immediate and stable association between the stadium and the sponsoring brand. The Atlanta case: when removing a brand is not so easy. The Atlanta case shows that “clean site” policies can encounter material limits. The Mercedes-Benz Stadium, home to the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United, is one of the most illustrative examples. During the World Cup it has been identified as Atlanta Stadium, following a practice already applied in Euro 2024, when stadiums such as the Allianz Arena were temporarily renamed Munich Football Arena. However, the Mercedes-Benz emblem integrated into the roof of the enclosure poses an added difficulty. Since it forms part of the structural design of the retractable roof, its removal or covering is not comparable to the removal of a conventional advertising support, as it could affect the integrity of the installation or generate disproportionate costs. This scenario highlights that the requirements arising from the clean site policy reach a limit when the brand is an inseparable part of the stadium's infrastructure itself. The response, therefore, has not been the elimination of the distinctive sign, but the adoption of balanced solutions through negotiation between the parties: maintaining the architectural element, limiting its exposure in broadcasts, and avoiding any additional use that could suggest a commercial association with the competition. The digital dimension: brands, campaigns, and social media during the World Cup. Industrial property is not only at stake in the stadium, but also in the digital environment. The use of expressions such as FIFA, World Cup, Copa Mundial or ...Read more

Tax deductions for R&D&I constitute one of the main instruments of incentive for research and development (R&D) and technological innovation (IT) in Spain. However, many companies find it difficult to determine whether their projects should be categorized as R&D or as technological innovation. The classification as R&D or IT is not merely a technical distinction, but has a direct impact on the percentage of deduction applicable in Corporate Income Tax, so correctly classifying a project is essential to maximize the available tax incentives. In this article we explain the difference between research and development and technological innovation, the role of the state of the art in this assessment, and how this classification affects R&D&I tax deductions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2ItGGVi6M&t=1s ¿Qué se considera investigación y desarrollo (I+D)? Research and development projects aim to generate new knowledge or technological developments that represent a significant breakthrough or advance compared to the existing state of the art at a global level. This type of project is characterized by two key features: High degree of technical uncertainty and relevant technical risk. In other words, these are initiatives where there is no known or obvious solution at the time the project starts, so the company must develop new technical solutions not available on the market, representing an objective novelty. This disruptive nature is what justifies the tax regulations establishing higher deduction percentages for R&D projects within the tax incentives for innovation. What is technological innovation (IT)? Technological innovation (IT), on the other hand, does not necessarily imply the creation of completely new technology. In these cases, the projects seek to introduce substantial improvements to existing products or processes in the company, generating a significant technical advance for the company, even though the technologies used may already exist in the market or in the sector, hence they represent a subjective novelty. Therefore, technological innovation is characterized by: Applying existing technologies in a novel way within the company; Introducing relevant improvements in processes or products; Generating technical advances for the organization, even if they are not entirely new in the sector. From a tax perspective, these projects can also benefit from R&D&I tax deductions, although with different deduction percentages than those for research and development. The role of the state of the art in the qualification of projects One of the fundamental elements to determine whether a project corresponds to R&D or IT is the analysis of the state of the art. The state of the art consists of studying the existing technical knowledge in a given field before starting a project. Its objective is to identify: What technological solutions already exist; What level of development the sector has reached; Whether the project proposes a truly novel advance. Thanks to this analysis, it is possible to determine if the project: Introduces a completely new development (R&D) or represents a relevant improvement on existing technologies (IT). Consequently, the state of the art becomes a key tool to technically justify the nature of the project and its fit within the R&D&I tax deductions. What happens if the project does not achieve the expected results? A common question among companies is whether the failure of a project prevents them from applying for R&D tax deductions. The answer is clear: not necessarily. What is relevant for classifying a project as research and development or technological innovation is not the final result, but the process of seeking a real technical advance. Therefore, to defend the project's classification regardless of the final result, it is imperative that the company can demonstrate: The activities carried out during the project; The methodology applied; The technical documentation generated; The justification of the technological challenge addressed. Therefore, even when the project does not achieve the expected result, it can still be considered R&D or technological innovation if the development effort undertaken is adequately demonstrated. Why it is essential to differentiate between R&D and technological innovation. Correctly determining whether a project is R&D or technological innovation (IT) is key because this classification directly affects the applicable tax deduction percentage. Within the framework of R&D&I tax deductions, Spanish regulations establish different incentives depending on the nature of the project. Deduction percentage for technological innovation (IT) Technological innovation projects can benefit from a deduction of: 12% on expenses incurred during the tax period in common territory, 15% in the chartered areas and 45% in the Canary Islands. Percentage of deduction in research and development (R&D) Research and development projects have higher tax incentives: In the common territory: 25% deduction on the expenses of the year 42% deduction on the excess expenses that exceed the average of the two previous years In the case of the chartered areas, the deduction percentages range between 30 and 50% of the eligible expenses, and in the Canary Islands between 45 and 75,6%. This difference reflects the greater technological risk and the greater degree of uncertainty associated with research and development. Keys to Properly Leveraging R&D&I Tax Credits To correctly apply R&D&I tax credits, companies must pay special attention to several aspects: Properly analyze the state of the art before starting the project Identify whether the development corresponds to R&D or technological innovation Adequately document all technical activities carried out Justify the technical progress achieved during the project Correct classification and documentation allows for reducing tax risks and optimizing the use of innovation incentives available in the Spanish tax system. Frequently asked questions about R&D tax deductions: What is the difference between research and development and technological innovation? Research and development seeks to generate entirely new technologies or knowledge, while technological innovation (IT) introduces substantial improvements to existing technologies or processes. Can a tax deduction be applied if the project is unsuccessful? Yes. The success of ...Read more

Applications for industrial designs grew in Spain during 2025, becoming the type of industrial property with the highest annual increase. This is reflected in the report "The OEPM in Figures 2025", published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, which places the increase in industrial designs at 14,8%, above the growth registered by patents (12%), utility models (8%) and trademarks (11,5%). This growth confirms the growing importance of protecting the external appearance of products within companies' industrial property strategies. In saturated markets, where many products compete on similar functionalities, design can become a decisive element of differentiation. The highest number of industrial design applications since 2019. The 14,8% growth puts industrial designs at their best level in recent years. In 2025, 16.032 designs were requested, a figure that had not been reached since 2019 and which exceeds the annual average of the last decade. The evolution is especially relevant because it comes after several instances of erratic behavior. After the declines recorded in the years following 2019, the 2025 data points to a clear recovery in the protection of design as a business asset. Evolution of national industrial design applications in the last 10 years Catalonia, Madrid, Valencian Community and Andalusia lead the industrial design map The OEPM report shows a clear territorial concentration of industrial design applications. In 2025, Catalonia was the autonomous community with the highest number of applications, with 3.920 designs, representing 24,5% of the total. They were followed by the Community of Madrid, with 17,2%; the Valencian Community, with 15,8%; and Andalusia, with 10,1%. These four communities account for 67,6% of all industrial design applications filed in Spain. This distribution reflects the weight of territories with a strong presence of sectors linked to design, fashion, footwear, retail, consumer products, decoration, furniture or the creative industry. Distribution of national industrial design applications by CC. AA. Fashion, ornamentation, and decorative objects account for a large portion of industrial design applications. The report also allows for an analysis of which types of products generate the most industrial design applications. In 2025, the three classes with the highest number of designs were clothing and haberdashery; graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation, interior and exterior space arrangement; and decorative objects. In the case of clothing and haberdashery items, designs linked to garments, footwear, accessories, textile accessories or ornamental elements applied to fashion products are included. This class once again leads the ranking, with 4.932 applications and a growth of 13,1% compared to 2024, reflecting the importance of protecting the aesthetics of the product in industries where the shape, cut, silhouette or visual details can be decisive. Also noteworthy is the category of graphic symbols, logos, surface patterns, ornamentation and layout of interior and exterior spaces, which grew by 23,4%. This class may include designs applied to prints, decorative motifs, graphic patterns, visual elements for interiors, commercial spaces or packaging. Their growth points to a greater focus on protecting visual elements that contribute to building identity, differentiating products, and reinforcing the brand experience. Beyond the categories that concentrate the largest volume, the report also shows very significant increases in classes that traditionally have a smaller weight in the number of applications. This is the case for travel goods, cases, parasols and personal items not included in other classes, which grows by 80,5%; stationery, office supplies, materials for artists or for teaching, which increases by 81%; and constructions and building elements, which register an increase of 76,3%. Although they start from lower figures than fashion or ornamentation, these growth rates point to a greater use of industrial design in sectors where the appearance of the product, its presentation or the visual configuration of certain elements is beginning to acquire more competitive relevance. Industrial design classes with the highest number of applications in 2025. The report data shows that industrial design is gaining importance as a protection tool within industrial property. And not only in sectors where product aesthetics traditionally play an obvious role, such as fashion, footwear, accessories, or decoration. It is also beginning to have a greater presence in categories linked to everyday products, packaging, professional use items, construction elements or solutions applied to the consumer experience. This growth reflects an increasingly clear reality: the appearance of a product can be a top-tier business asset. In many markets, shape, finish, presentation, or visual configuration directly influence consumer perception and can be decisive in differentiating oneself from competing products. All the graphics included in this article have been taken from the report "The OEPM in Figures 2025", published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. Paloma Querol, associate of Elzaburu

In Jersey, trademark protection is simple and quick, yet until now it could only be obtained by extending a British registration or through the Madrid Protocol designating the United Kingdom. Back in 2024, we announced on our blog that the country's administration was working on the creation of its own independent trademark registry, which was expected to be launched in the near future. Well, that moment will arrive on August 1, 2026, the date announced for the opening of the Jersey Trademark Registry. What changes in trademark protection in Jersey? From 1 August 2026, Jersey may be designated directly and independently to the Jersey office or as a designation through the Madrid System. This will allow brands to be protected in this territory without necessarily depending on the United Kingdom. From then on, the new office will act as the administrator of trademark rights in the country, as the office of origin to extend trademarks through the Madrid System, and as a Contracting Party if designated in an international application. This development is relevant for international trademark holders, as they will be able to include the country as a specific territory within their protection strategy, especially when there is activity directed at this market. Declaration of intent to use in Jersey One of the most notable features of Jersey as a Contracting Party of the Madrid System is that its selection will require a declaration of intent to use and it will therefore be necessary to comply with the formalities that the office decides to require. This requirement should be kept in mind from the beginning, because it is not just a matter of adding a new territory to an international application. The designation of Jersey must be aligned with a realistic forecast of trademark use in the country and with the formal requirements that your office will ultimately establish. What will happen to existing trademark rights in Jersey? Whenever changes of this magnitude occur, the most immediate question, and the one that generates the most concern, is how the new developments fit into the previous status quo. It is presumed that the rights obtained in Jersey prior to the extension of a British trademark will remain unchanged, although it remains to be seen how they articulate the dependence of the validity between the two. I dare to predict that the right will continue independently, maintaining the priority dates of the British trademark. As regards international trademarks that designate the United Kingdom and that are already registered on the effective date, i.e., August 1, 2026, a simple transition is foreseen through a sort of “pseudo-cloning” of the designation in the British parent, in a new daughter in Jersey. Applications pending before 1 August 2026 In applications pending before the effective date, independent protection will be recognized in Jersey once the registration procedure in the United Kingdom is completed; if this is not granted before 1 August, no right will arise in Jersey. However, it should be understood that, from August 1, 2026, a new independent designation may be made in Jersey, which would not be affected by the events that occurred in the United Kingdom. But what will happen to procedures that are in progress on August 1st and that are ultimately rejected in the United Kingdom after August 1st? In my opinion, these will have no effect in Jersey and will necessarily have to be replicated directly in the new jurisdiction. What should companies with international brands review? From a practical point of view, this change suggests reviewing international portfolios before the new system comes into effect. It is advisable to identify which trademarks are currently protected in Jersey by extension of a British right, which UK designations are still pending, and in which cases it may be advisable to apply for a separate Jersey designation from 1 August 2026. The incorporation of Jersey as a proper designation within the Madrid System brings more clarity and flexibility, but also requires at least a review of existing rights to avoid inconveniences. For companies with interests in this territory, anticipating needs will be the best way to avoid doubts about the actual scope of their trademark protection.   Cristina Arroyo, Associate Partner and Director of the international brand area at ELZABURU

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