Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 June 2024, GEMA (C-135/23). Facts The case originates from a dispute between the collective management society GEMA and GL, a company that operates a residential building in Germany. GL installed televisions equipped with indoor antennas in several of the apartments, allowing them to receive signals and broadcast transmissions, including music, to the tenants. GEMA considered that this making available by GL constituted a communication to the public of protected works, in contravention of the exclusive right of communication to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC. The referring German court —Amtsgericht Potsdam— raised a preliminary question before the Court of Justice of the European Union for the interpretation of the concept of communication to the public in this case. Rulings The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC and establishes the following criteria: The concept of “communication to the public” is not exhausted by the mere making available of technical facilities (such as televisions with antennas) if there is no additional act that effectively makes protected works available to a public different from the one originally intended. The profit motive of making the devices available, although relevant, does not in itself determine the existence of communication to the public in the European sense; the decisive factor is whether an act occurs that transfers the protected works to a new public beyond the usual private reception. It is for the referring court to determine, in accordance with the specific facts and applicable national regulations, whether GL's conduct constitutes an act of communication to the public in accordance with European criteria. The Court notes that assessing whether communication to the public exists requires a joint factual and legal examination, taking into account the existence of a new public and the effective control of making the information available. Commentary This judgment contributes to the Court's consolidated case law on the concept of "communication to the public" in the field of intellectual property, developed in a long series of pronouncements that seek to balance the protection of authors' rights with legal certainty and technological neutrality. The specific novelty of case C 135/23 lies in transferring to the context of rented housing criteria previously applied to other environments (such as hotel establishments or public places), clarifying that it is not enough to make available technical equipment that can receive emissions: it is necessary to determine whether there is effectively making protected works available to a “new public” different from the original public of the transmission. This line of interpretation seeks to avoid a disproportionate extension of the exclusive right of communication to the public that could encompass activities of a purely technical nature. Furthermore, the ruling underlines the importance of the new public criterion and technological neutrality: the mere technology used (televisions with an indoor antenna) cannot, by itself, generate a new act of communication if there is no effective making of works available to the public. In this way, the Court reinforces a functional approach that requires a real connection with the exercise of the exclusive rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, avoiding formalistic interpretations that would have broad restrictive repercussions on legitimate activities of owners and tenants. In conclusion, the CJEU precisely defines the elements that constitute the concept of communication to the public, offering a clear guideline for national courts when faced with similar cases, and ensuring a balanced application of EU copyright law. Inés de Casas, Senior Associate, Legal Area

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

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2024, Reprobel (C-230/23). 1. Facts The dispute arises in Belgium, between Reprobel CV (“Reprobel”), a collective management entity designated by the Belgian state to guarantee the receipt and distribution of the remuneration provided for by national regulations for the making of copies of protected works in certain cases (such as reproduction for private use), and Copaco Belgium NV (“Copaco Belgium”), a distributor of computer reproduction equipment such as photocopiers and scanners, and therefore subject to the payment of said compensation under Belgian legislation. Until the end of 2016, Copaco paid Reprobel lump sum remuneration for the reproduction of protected works. Following the judgment in the Hewlett-Packard Belgium case (C-572/13), which declared certain aspects of the Belgian scheme contrary to Directive 2001/29/EC —for providing fixed remuneration unlinked to the actual use of equipment and without corrective mechanisms to avoid overcompensation—, Copaco Belgium suspended payment of invoices issued by Reprobel between November 2015 and January 2017. The company invoked the direct effect of the aforementioned Directive and indicated that it would not resume payments until Belgian law was brought into line with Union law. In March 2017 a new equitable compensation system came into effect in Belgium, without Reprobel resuming payments. On December 16, 2020, Reprobel filed a lawsuit and demanded that Copaco Belgium pay the equitable compensation provided for by Belgian legislation on copyright and related rights, for the marketing of multifunctional equipment and digital media capable of making copies. Copaco Belgium contested this claim, arguing that it was not acting as an end user or as an entity obligated to pay, but merely as a distributor within the supply chain. The referring body decided to suspend the proceedings and refer several preliminary questions to the Court of Justice concerning the possibility of invoking the direct effect of Directive 2001/29 against a collective management entity and whether the national court must disapply legislation incompatible with Union law. 2. Rulings The Companies Court of Ghent (Belgium) referred a preliminary question to the CJEU, requesting an interpretation of various provisions of Directive 2001/29/EC, in particular Articles 5(2)(a) and (b), on exceptions and limitations to the right of reproduction and the corresponding equitable compensation. First, the Court focuses on analyzing the Belgian compensation system and Reprobel's role and powers within that system. The Court confirms that Belgian regulations provide for a mixed compensation system, consisting of a fixed part (lump sum) and a proportional part, paid for by the purchasers of the equipment or reproduction services, the collection and distribution of which corresponds to Reprobel. Next, the CJEU examines whether Reprobel, as the only entity authorized in Belgium to collect and distribute equitable compensation for private copying and reprographics, has exorbitant powers regarding relations between individuals. It concludes affirmatively, given that Reprobel is legally entitled to claim payment of remuneration from manufacturers and distributors, as well as to request information necessary to determine the debtors and the amounts owed, under penalty of criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It can also obtain information from customs, tax and social security authorities, which reinforces its position as an entity endowed with public prerogatives. Furthermore, the CJEU states in its third preliminary question that Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows individuals to invoke before national courts the non-compliance with Union law against an entity such as Reprobel, when the latter acts in the exercise of a mission of public interest endowed with exorbitant powers. In such cases, individuals may oppose the application of national rules contrary to Union law, given that the entity operates as an extension of the State in the execution of the obligations arising from Directive 2001/29. In its fourth preliminary question, the CJEU recalls that the provisions of a directive can have direct effect when they are unconditional and sufficiently precise, allowing individuals to invoke them before national courts against the State in the event of incorrect or non-existent transposition. In this respect, Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 imposes a clear and specific obligation on Member States to ensure fair compensation, without making it subject to further measures. Consequently, national judges must ensure the primacy and full effectiveness of Union law, leaving conflicting domestic rules inapplicable. The CJEU therefore concludes that Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC precludes national legislation that imposes a double equal compensation levy — for private copying and for reprographics — on the same equipment or media without differentiating the uses that justify each modality, as it generates excessive compensation and infringes the principles of proportionality and neutrality of the internal market. Additionally, the CJEU extends the direct effect of the Directive to cases where an individual files claims against the entity that collects equitable compensation for acts of reproduction, which implies that the national court must exclude the application of national rules contrary to the Directive when the specific case so requires. 3. Commentary: The ruling represents a significant doctrinal advance regarding the direct effect of directives in the field of copyright, especially concerning equitable compensation for exceptions and limitations to the right of reproduction. By stating that the relevant provisions of Directive 2001/29/EC have direct effect, the Court consolidates a body of case law that allows individuals to invoke European rules directly against management entities acting in the exercise of extraordinary public powers. From the perspective of EU law, this ruling underlines the effectiveness of European law against national regulations that may have incorrectly transposed the...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.”

Recent legal reforms have significantly improved the funding of the cultural sector. Theater, music and audiovisual productions can now benefit from tax incentives that promote their development and dissemination, and that have a significant positive impact on society. The role of tax incentives in the cultural sector These are measures that not only alleviate the tax burden of those who support cultural projects, but also open new avenues of financing for producers, causing the system to benefit both promoters and creators as well as investors. Access to funding remains one of the main challenges for those who produce cultural projects. In recent years, tax regulations have incorporated measures that partially alleviate this obstacle, opening up new possibilities for certain projects to access other sources of financing with the greatest possible legal guarantees. Evolution of the legal framework Currently, cultural productions of various kinds such as audiovisual works, plays, concerts or dance performances can benefit from a system that recognizes the right to apply tax deductions in the Corporate Income Tax. These deductions can be used by the producers themselves or, under certain conditions, transferred to third parties interested in participating in the project, that is, to investors. The audiovisual sector has traditionally enjoyed the greatest tax recognition, as the first specific incentives were introduced in 1995, although they were small and unattractive measures. They were consolidated following substantial modifications to the regulations in 2015 with the reform of the Corporate Tax, which established an attractive framework for national and international productions. In recent years, this favorable treatment has been progressively extended to other disciplines, such as the performing arts and live music, which did not have their own regime until 2015, when a specific deduction was incorporated for the first time. Although differences in scope and percentages still exist between sectors, the regulations have evolved towards a broader and more integrated approach to all cultural activities. Benefits for producers and investors For many producers, these tax incentives in film have provided a complementary source of financing, enabling them to carry out projects that would otherwise be more difficult to realize, thus contributing decisively to the development of the industry. As we announced, the tax regulations also include benefits for those who decide to participate by contributing an economic amount in cultural projects developed by third parties that, under certain conditions, can be used by private investors. This model allows companies and professionals to collaborate in cultural development with the possibility of obtaining a deduction in Corporate Income Tax or, in some cases, in Personal Income Tax. It is not about subsidies, but a system that channels part of the tax effort towards cultural activities with social and economic impact. Challenges in cultural regulations Investor participation in these types of initiatives has increased in recent years, driven by regulatory clarity and the appeal of combining a cultural purpose with tax optimization. Although there are still many areas for improvement, such as in the equalization of tax treatment between different disciplines and models, the current framework increasingly offers tools that can contribute significantly to the access, production and preservation of culture in its many forms.   Inés de Casas, Senior Associate in the Media & Entertainment area

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

It contains 13 rulings by the CJEU and the Spanish courts, presented under three headings: Facts, Statements and Commentary. They are analysed by the firm's professionals and deal with trademarks, copyrights, patents, designs, piracy and plant varieties. Madrid, 28 May 2024. - ELZABURU, a firm specialising in the management of intangibles, has published the 12th edition of its European jurisprudence yearbook, which contains 13 relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice and the Spanish courts, commented on by the firm's specialists in each area. This compilation contains commented rulings on trademarks (4), copyrights (3), patents (2), designs (2), piracy (1) and plant varieties (1). Over these 12 years, the Yearbook has published a total of 337 cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU Trademark Court, the Supreme Court of the Provincial Courts, other European and Spanish courts, and the European Patent Office. This year's compilation has selected relevant cases from the Court of Justice in its interpretation of European regulations in the most varied scenarios; as well as the work of the Spanish courts, which have been joined this year, for the first time, by the civil courts to settle appeals against the resolutions of the OEPM. In this edition, 9 professionals from the firm have published their comments: Enrique Armijo, María Cadarso, Inés de Casas, Juan José Caselles, Mabel Klimt, Carlos Morán, Alessandro Pelliccioni, Pedro Saturio and Ana Sanz. The Editorial Committee of the Yearbook has been formed by Ana Donate, Margarita García, Carlos Morán, Elisa Prieto, José Ignacio San Martín and Bosco de la Vega.