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.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2025, Salaparuta (C-341/24). Facts Duca di Salaparuta SpA It owns several trademarks that include the word "Salaparuta" for wines of class 33, among them: Italian trademark no. 511337 SALAPARUTA, registered on July 13, 1989. European Union Trademark No. 001302835 SALAPARUTA, registered on October 25, 2000. These brands are used to market wines that have no connection to the Italian municipality of Salaparuta, located in Sicily. On February 20, 2006, the Italian authorities recognized the Salaparuta Controlled Designation of Origin (DOC Salaparuta) to designate wines made with grapes from vineyards located in that municipality. This national protection was extended to the European Union after the Commission published a list of quality wines produced in specified regions (vcprd), which included the Salaparuta designation. From that moment on, the name, referred to from now on as PDO Salaparuta, became part of the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, acquiring effects throughout the Union from 1 August 2009. On February 8, 2016, Duca di Salaparuta filed a lawsuit before the Tribunal di Milano requesting the annulment of the DOC Salaparuta and the DOP Salaparuta, alleging that they were misleading designations that interfered with his well-known brand for Salaparuta wines. On February 16, 2021, the court dismissed the claim, considering the rule of the preeminence of the PDO over the trademark applicable, without prejudice to the fact that the owner could continue to use his trademark under certain conditions. This judgment was appealed by Duca di Salaparuta and confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Milan by judgment of 5 May 2023, in which it was established that the matter should be resolved in accordance with Council Regulation No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing the common organisation of the wine market, in force in 2006 when the Salaparuta PDO was recognized. This Regulation conferred automatic protection as PDO, within the Union, to the PDOs communicated by the Member States to the Commission and established in its Annex VII, F, point 2, letter b), the primacy of the PDO over trademarks. Duca di Salaparuta appealed again to the Supreme Court of Cassation, arguing that Regulation No. 1493/1999 was not applicable, since, in his opinion, the publication in the European Union's e-Bacchus register in 2009 implied the application of the Regulations in force at that time, namely Regulation No. 479/2008, Regulation No. 1234/2007 or even Regulation No. 1308/2013, which excluded the protection of a PDO when, taking into account the reputation and notoriety of a previous trademark, consumers could be misled about the identity of the wine. In response to this appeal, the Italian Supreme Court referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU: Whether the Salaparuta PDO recognized in 2006 should be considered to have maintained its effects and, therefore, Regulation No 1493/1999 should be applicable, or whether, on the contrary, national protection had been replaced by the Salaparuta PDO throughout the Union, and the Regulations invoked by Duca di Salaparuta should be applied. In the event that the 1999 Regulation was deemed applicable, the question was whether the protection regime provided for in that Regulation was exhaustive in resolving cases of coexistence between names and trademarks, or whether the general principle of prohibition of misleading signs could be applied. Rulings The CJEU confirms that Regulation No. 1493/1999 is applicable, as it was in force when the Salaparuta DOC was recognized in Italy in 2006. The publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in 2009 did not imply a new registration, but simply the automatic extension of national protection to the Community level, as a consequence of Italy's communication to the Commission on the existence of that vcprd. Consequently, the conflict must be examined in accordance with the provisions of Annex VII, F.2, second paragraph of the aforementioned 2009 Regulation, which governs the coexistence regime between PDOs and trademarks. This provision establishes that the holder of a well-known and registered trademark for wines containing words identical to the name of a region may continue to use it if the registration was made at least twenty-five years before the official recognition of the geographical name by the Member State and the trademark has been effectively used without interruption. Furthermore, the Court added that the cancellation of the protection of a wine designation protected under Article 54 of Regulation No 1493/1999 was not possible except at the initiative of the Commission, and only until 31 December 2014, when the conditions laid down in Article 34 of Regulation No 479/2008 were not met. As regards the second question, the Court declared that the general principles could not invalidate the conclusion on the exhaustiveness of the regime established in Annex VII, F.2, second paragraph of Regulation No 1493/1999, which governs conflicts with earlier well-known trademarks registered for wines and containing words identical to a PDO. Commentary The CJEU's decision is of particular importance, as it precisely defines the legal framework applicable to VCPRDs published in the Official Journal of the European Communities pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 54 of Regulation No 1493/1999. The Court clarifies that this publication does not imply the replacement of the pre-existing national protection, but rather constitutes an extension of its recognition to the European Union sphere. This interpretation reinforces the legal certainty of the holders of PDOs recognized under the regime prior to 2009, guaranteeing the primacy and stability of their rights, which cannot be annulled except in truly exceptional situations. Also of great interest is the confirmation, already declared in other judgments such as that of February 27th...Read more

Intellectual property (IP) is not just a legal tool to protect intangibles: it is a structural economic engine for Europe. The latest joint report from the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office confirms that intellectual property rights-intensive sectors concentrate a large part of the continent's wealth creation, skilled employment, exports and technological investment. The study analyzes the period 2021–2023 and identifies 361 intellectual property rights intensive industries, responsible for almost 48% of EU GDP, more than 30% of employment and close to 80% of European foreign trade. In addition to attracting more than 88% of private equity and venture capital investments in the EU aimed at startups that make intensive use of IP. This data not only provides macroeconomic evidence. They also offer a strategic conclusion for companies: protecting innovation translates directly into competitiveness, funding, and growth. Next, we analyze the main conclusions of the report and their practical implications for technology, industrial, and creative companies. What are intellectual property-intensive industries? Industries that register a higher than average number of patents, trademarks, designs, or other rights per employee, compared to other industries that use intellectual property rights, are considered to be IP-intensive. Simply put: An industry is identified as intellectual property rights intensive in the EU if, for at least one of the intellectual property rights considered, the number of those rights per employee exceeds the average of all EU industries that use that same intellectual property right. These industries range from pharmaceuticals and electronics to software, fashion, food with geographical indications, and creative services. The report's premise is clear: when IP is used systematically, its economic impact multiplies. Key figures that explain the economic weight of IP The study offers compelling indicators regarding industries with intensive use of IP: They generated 30,6% of total EU employment (more than 65 million workers). 47,9% of European GDP was generated by these industries (7,7 trillion euros). 76,4% of imports and 78,3% of exports, generating a trade surplus of 108 billion euros, which helps to keep the EU's overall foreign trade balanced. Wage premium of 40,9%, significantly higher than other non-IP intensive sectors. 88% of venture capital and private equity investment went to startups operating in IP-intensive sectors. These figures demonstrate a direct correlation between the protection of intangible assets and value creation. These are not marginal sectors or technological niches, but the backbone of the European economy. Patents, trademarks, designs and copyright: how each right contributes. The economic contribution varies depending on the type of right used. The report breaks down different sector profiles. In addition to companies specializing in the leasing of intellectual property, some examples are detailed below, broken down by type of industrial property right. Patent-intensive industries: Manufacturing of hand-held power tools. Manufacturing of telecommunications equipment. Manufacturing of household appliances. Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Other experimental research and development in natural sciences and technology. Brand-intensive industries: Manufacture of other transport equipment (ncop, not elsewhere classified), such as handcarts; Production of other non-distilled beverages, derived from fermentation, such as vermouth. Collective investment, funds and similar financial entities Activities of holding companies Extraction of crude oil Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Industries intensive in industrial designs: Manufacture of other transport equipment (ncop), such as handcarts; Wholesale of furniture, carpets and lighting equipment. Manufacturing of electrical lighting equipment. Manufacture of jewelry and similar articles. Activities of intermediaries in the wholesale trade of furniture, household goods and hardware. Copyright-intensive industries: Printing, prepress and media preparation. Reproduction of recorded media. Retail sale of books, newspapers and stationery. Retail sale of music and video recordings. Video game. Industries intensive in Geographical Indications Dairy products Spirits Wine Beer Industries intensive in plant varieties Wholesale trade of flowers and plants. Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Wholesale trade of cereals, raw tobacco, seeds and animal feed. Other research and experimental developments in natural sciences and technology. Intellectual property and quality employment One of the most relevant results of the report is the wage premium. Workers in IP-intensive sectors receive, on average, 40,9% more remuneration than those in non-intensive sectors. This data has clear implications: higher professional qualifications, more stable jobs, greater productivity, and more investment in talent. Intellectual property not only generates business wealth, but also higher quality and more specialized employment. Exports and global value chains: IP-intensive sectors are notably more international. According to the report: three out of every four euros exported by the EU come from these sectors, which generate a trade surplus and concentrate greater integration into global value chains. This is explained by the fact that protected innovation facilitates: technological differentiation, barriers to entry, international licenses, and scalability of business models. IP as a signal for investors: venture capital and startups. One of the most innovative chapters of the study analyzes the relationship between IP intensity and business financing. The conclusion is clear: investors interpret intellectual property as a sign of quality and growth potential. More than 88% of European venture capital and private equity investment is directed towards startups in IP-intensive sectors. The reasons are clear: lower risk of copying, greater market exclusivity, transferable or licenseable assets, better valuation...Read more

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently rejected the application to register the TEQUIFRESA trademark to distinguish alcoholic beverages in class 33. The decision is based on the fact that the requested mark evokes the geographical indication (GI) “Tequila”, protected by both European regulations and international agreements with Mexico. This case is a good example of how European regulations protect geographical indications against attempts to register trademarks that could unfairly take advantage of their reputation or mislead the consumer. Background of the case The applicant, Fraternity Spirits World Inc., filed the application for the word mark TEQUIFRESA in class 33 to designate: “Alcoholic beverages, except beers”. In its initial communication of 27 May 2025, the EUIPO issued an objection on the basis of Article 7.1.j) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTM) on the grounds that the mark evoked the geographical indication (GI) “Tequila”. The applicant did not submit any arguments within the allotted time, so the Office confirmed the denial in its resolution of August 22, 2025. Legal basis of the EUIPO Enhanced protection of the geographical indication (GI) “Tequila” In the refusal decision the EUIPO recalled that the term “Tequila” enjoys double protection: Under Regulation (EC) No 2024/1143, of 11 April 2024, which regulates geographical indications in the field of spirit drinks in the European Union. Under the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on mutual recognition and protection of designations in the spirits sector (OJEU L 152, 11.06.1997). Evocation of the protected term The EUIPO established that the TEQUIFRESA trademark application includes the element “TEQUI”, which evokes the term “Tequila”. Adding the name "STRAWBERRY" would not eliminate the existence of that evocation. Furthermore, in relation to the products requested in class 33 (“Alcoholic beverages, except beers”), the EUIPO considers that the formulation includes “spiritual beverages based on agave”, which do not have the origin indicated by the geographical indication evoked in the trademark for which protection is sought. Consequences of the decision The EUIPO, pursuant to Article 7.1.j) of the EU Trademark Regulation, refused the application for the TEQUIFRESA trademark. In accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the EU Regulation, the applicant has the right to lodge an appeal within two months of notification and will then have an additional period of two months to state any arguments he considers relevant. Importance of the decision for trademark holders and applicants This case highlights several key aspects that trademark applicants should consider when planning their trademark strategy in the European Union. The resolution confirms that geographical indications enjoy reinforced protection that not only prevents the identical registration of the term, but also any evocation, even partial, as happens with the inclusion of the element “TEQUI” in the requested trademark, capable of referring the consumer to the geographical indication “Tequila” despite being accompanied by other elements or names. Furthermore, this case underscores the need to conduct thorough preliminary searches not only for trademarks but also for geographical indications, thus reinforcing the importance of designing robust trademark strategies that are aligned with current regulations. Marta Rodríguez, Senior Associate in the Brands area at Elzaburu

In the competitive world of wine, a brand represents much more than a name: it is a promise of quality, a story, and a bridge to consumers. However, registering and protecting a wine brand in international markets is not a simple administrative procedure. It is a comprehensive strategy that combines legality, identity and differentiation. 3 key aspects in international trademark registration 1. Trademark registration in strategic markets Using the Madrid System can simplify trademark protection in multiple countries. However, it's essential to note that some markets, such as the United States and China, have specific requirements and deadlines that may require additional action. 2. Protection of By-Products and Secondary Brands Many wineries have additional product lines, such as limited editions or premium wines, that require specific protection. Additionally, registering brand-related domain names helps prevent conflicts in the digital realm. 3. Protecting the Brand Narrative Wine brands are often built around stories related to family tradition, terroir, or production methods. These narratives should not only be part of branding, but also be protected through intellectual property rights. Building a differentiated brand identity: the key to avoiding market dilution Beyond legal protection, a brand must stand out visually and emotionally. This is especially relevant in the wine sector, where consumers often make decisions based on cultural, visual, and storytelling aspects. Design of distinctive labels. A unique label not only attracts consumers, but also provides protection against competitors who try to imitate the design. Brand narrative. Building your brand around stories related to the winery or vineyard allows you to create experiences and connect with consumers. These narratives must be reflected in the brand's visual identity: labeling, digital channels, wineries, etc. Strategies to avoid dilution. In highly competitive markets, such as Germany or the United Kingdom, there is a risk that a brand will lose its exclusivity. An original design and advertising campaigns that reinforce its unique character can prevent this problem. When choosing a name, remember to avoid generic or protected terms. Terms such as "Cava", "Prosecco" or "Chablis" are often protected as geographical indications. Even if they appear generic in one context, their use in a trademark may be prohibited if the necessary conditions are not met. You can read this other article about the main legal challenges of protecting wine trademarks abroad and how to address them. Ultimately, registering and marketing a wine brand in international markets is a challenge that goes beyond legality. It requires a strategic vision that combines legal protection, innovative design, and authentic storytelling. By doing so, you not only ensure the brand's expansion and protection against potential counterfeiting, but also strengthen its market position. Miguel Ángel Medina, Associate Partner in the Trademark Area

Spanish wine has achieved a privileged place in international markets thanks to its quality and the richness of its tradition. However, taking a wine brand abroad is not limited to standing out for its organoleptic characteristics or an effective commercial strategy. One of the biggest challenges is ensuring legal protection of the brand in the face of the complexity of international regulations and competitors in the sector. The wine industry faces unique challenges in terms of intellectual property due to the importance of geographical indications, traditional appellations and strict labelling regulations. Ignoring these particularities can lead to costly legal conflicts and loss of prestige in the market. Specific legal challenges of registering wine trademarks 1. Geographical Indications and Denominations of Origin (DOP/PGI) DOP/PGI are key elements in the marketing of wine, as they guarantee the authenticity of the product to the consumer. Registering a trademark that refers to a protected geographical region, such as “Rioja” or “Champagne”, is strictly regulated. Any non-compliance could result in denial of registration or even penalties. 2. Traditional wine designations In many markets, terms such as “crianza”, “gran reserva” or “grand cru” are protected to preserve the cultural and quality link they represent. Its misuse may be considered an infringement, even if the term is common in the language of the target market. 3. Labeling Regulations Labels represent not only a distinctive visual element, but also a regulated source of information. In addition, the label design must comply with both trademark protection requirements and food and beverage labeling regulations. Health warnings, alcohol content and origin information must comply with local laws. How can you face these challenges and expand your wine brand in the international market? To effectively protect a wine brand, it is necessary to adopt a legal and preventive strategy. Some key actions include: Conducting prior research: This includes looking for potential conflicts with already registered trademarks and verifying that the trademark does not infringe rules on protected names in the target market. Ensure the originality of visual elements: Logos, labels and other distinctive features must be unique. A well-designed visual identity also makes it easier to defend against possible imitations. Obtain local legal advice: Each market has specific regulations. An intellectual property lawyer in the destination country can prevent unexpected problems. Ultimately, protecting a wine brand in foreign markets not only ensures its commercial success, but also preserves its legacy and authenticity. In such a competitive sector, a solid legal strategy can be the difference between sustained growth and legal conflicts. Investing in brand protection paves the way for smooth international expansion. Miguel Ángel Medina, Associate Partner in the Brands Area of ​​Elzaburu

Yesterday, April 23, 20024, Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which modifies the regime relating to geographical indications in the European Union, was published in the OJEU. This regulation repeals Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 on the quality of agricultural and food products that regulated geographical indications (Protected Designation of Origin -PDO- and Protected Geographical Indication -PGI-) and traditional specialties guaranteed (TSG), as well as such as the use of certain optional quality terms and replaces it with the new regulation. Likewise, it partially modifies the regimes of the regulations (EU) of the quality figures of wines (Regulation 1308/2013) and spirits (Regulation 2019/1753). Its publication represents a crucial point in the updating and expansion of the scope of protection of quality figures that was recently achieved by Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 18 regarding the protection of geographical indications of artisanal products, which introduced for the first time a GI protection regime for these products at the European Union level and modified Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753. Among the novelties of the regulation approved yesterday, in line with current trends in Intellectual and Industrial Property and other branches that regulate production and commerce, is the presence and relevance of the sustainability of these figures in all their aspects (environmental , social and economic), although from a regime based on voluntariness. Other very notable aspects are their contribution to better protection and explicit legal protection of them against domain names and on the Internet, something that has been constantly demanded in recent years given the discriminatory and inferior situation in which they exist. GIs were found in this area in some of the most important domain name dispute resolution systems and other environments, particularly when compared to trademarks. Likewise, it regulates the conditions under which the mention of a geographical indication can be used commercially when an ingredient is used in the labeling of the product, which were points where in practice it tended to generate ambiguity and confusion in consumers about whether the product benefited from the geographical indication or what specifically benefited from that geographical indication. The obligation to mention the producer on labeling, the use of personal data in applications and the role of producer groups as GI management entities are also regulated. According to sources from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Spain is the third EU State in number of quality figures (DOP, PGI and ETG), with 381 registered in the EU registry, only behind Italy, with 890 figures, and France, with 769. The 381 Spanish figures are distributed in 146 wines, 212 agri-food products - there we can find cheese; meats and the like; fish; fruits, vegetables and legumes; olive oil and vinegar; sweets such as Polvorones, Nougat or Alfajores, among others; honey, etc. -, 19 spirit drinks and 4 Traditional Guaranteed Specialties (TSG), with another 25 figures currently in the registration process with the European Commission. According to the latest available data, in Spain more than 330.000 farmers and ranchers produce products with geographical indication quality seals, with more than 1,5 million cultivated hectares and 2,3 million heads of livestock. This quality production has an estimated value at origin of more than 7.000 million euros and is subject to a rigorous control program, which is part of the National Plan for Official Control of the Food Chain (PNCOCA 2021-2025) and which carried out 49.213 controls in 2022. The new regulation will come into force 20 days after its publication and will also be applicable from May 13, 2024, except for the parts related to article 10, sections 4 and 5 (relating to the national opposition procedure of the EU Member States), Article 39, paragraph 1 (referring to the drawing up by Member States of the list of operators that carry out activities subject to obligations established in the specifications of the GIs), and Article 45 (which deals with the certification of compliance with the specifications), which will be applicable from January 1, 2025. Miguel Ángel Medina, Partner-Associate at ELZABURU For another version of this article you can consult the MARQUES Blog For more information: Javier Herreros jherreros@goodwill.es Tel. : 626 20 73 22

Miguel Ángel Medina, associate partner of Elzaburu, participates in the round table on GIs held within the framework of the annual MARQUES conference. Available at: https://www.worldipreview.com/news/marques-2018-the-scope-of- gi-protection-16680 Source: World Intellectual Property Review Author(s): Miguel Ángel Medina González [Show News]

The associate partner of ELZABURU, Miguel A. Medina, participates in the workshop "A tale of sorbets, geographical indications and brands" addressing the issue of prejudicial issues raised in relation to the designation of origin 'Queso Manchego'. Source: MARQUES Author/s: Miguel Ángel Medina González