From April 30, 2026, the possibility of requesting new domain extensions opens. This process, which had not occurred since 2012, once again places at the center of the debate a decision with a high strategic impact for companies: to operate under their own top-level domain, that is, to adopt a .brand instead of depending on generic extensions such as “.com” or territorial ones such as “.es”. The application period will remain open until August 12, offering companies the option to take a further step in managing their online presence. A context marked by security and digital trust. The reopening of this process is not accidental. The sustained increase in risks on the internet has highlighted the need to strengthen mechanisms for identifying and protecting brands in the digital environment. In Spain, recent data shows a clear trend: cybersecurity incidents continue to grow, with a particular impact from online fraud and phishing. In this context, phenomena such as cybersquatting (the registration of domains by third parties that reproduce or imitate other brands) continue to represent a relevant threat to companies in all sectors. Given this situation, .brand domains are presented as a tool that allows companies to strengthen their digital identity and create a safer environment for the user. By operating under its own extension, the brand establishes a controlled space in which the authenticity of the content is more easily recognizable. What does operating under a .brand domain entail? Adopting a .brand domain represents a significant change from the traditional domain management model. Although these extensions are compatible with existing ones, they introduce a key difference: the company gains direct control over all domain names generated under its own extension. This means that: The risk of third parties registering similar domains under that extension is eliminated. Legal certainty in online brand management is strengthened. User confidence is improved by unequivocally identifying the business origin of the website. Competitive advantages of .brand domains Beyond protection, .brand domains offer a number of strategic advantages that can have a direct impact on the company's positioning: Unambiguous digital identity A custom domain allows you to build an online presence that is completely aligned with the brand, eliminating ambiguities and reinforcing its recognition. Greater user confidence In an environment where credibility is a critical factor, having your own extension makes it easier for the user to clearly identify that they are interacting with the legitimate company. Flexibility for campaigns and projects. .brand domains allow for the development of more coherent and memorable naming structures for campaigns or projects, increasing their commercial appeal. Impact on visibility and positioning Although it is not the only factor, consistency and clarity in domain architecture can contribute positively to the digital positioning strategy and the overall visibility of the brand. Is this a solution for all companies? Despite their advantages, .brand domains do not appear, at the moment, to be a universal option. Its adoption is conditioned by one main factor: cost. The application fee can be around $220.000, plus an estimated annual maintenance fee of about $25.000. This level of investment places this figure, in principle, within the realm of large corporations. However, we will have to see how these costs evolve in the future. Main challenges in applying for a .brand domain The process of obtaining a .brand domain not only involves a significant financial investment, but also prior strategic planning. Among the main challenges are: Having the trademark registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. The TLD (Top-Level Domain) must be identical to the registered trademark. Having the appropriate economic and technical capacity to manage your own domain termination. Therefore, rather than an isolated decision, this is an initiative that must be integrated into a global brand and online presence strategy. A long-term strategic decision The opening of the new domain application process represents a relevant opportunity for those companies seeking to strengthen their digital positioning from a structural perspective. .brand domains are not simply an alternative to traditional extensions, but a tool that allows companies to take greater control over their online identity, reduce risks associated with misuse, and build safer and more recognizable digital environments. José Ignacio San Martín, Associate Partner in the Brands area of Elzaburu.
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.”
The holder of a Community trade mark registration that had expired due to non-renewal lodged an appeal against the notification informing him of such expiry. Since the holder did not submit a statement of reasons within the relevant period, the appeal was inadmissible. Furthermore, since the notification was not a decision terminating the proceedings, the appeal did not comply with Article 66(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. In its decision of 26 August 2024 in case R 656/2024-4, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO has dismissed an appeal brought by the proprietor of a Community trade mark registration that had expired due to non-renewal against the notification informing the proprietor of such expiration. The Board of Appeal considered that, since the EUTM holder did not submit any statement of reasons within the relevant period, the appeal did not comply with Article 68 of Regulation 2017/1001 and should be dismissed as inadmissible pursuant to Article 23(1)(d) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625. Furthermore, since the notification by which the EUIPO informed the EUTM holder, pursuant to Article 53(8) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the expiry of the EUTM registration would take effect on 23 July 2023 (i.e. the notification subject to the appeal) was not a decision terminating the proceedings, the appeal did not comply with Article 66(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and should have been dismissed as inadmissible under Article 23(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, even if the statement of grounds for the appeal had been submitted in good time (quod non). Facts The figurative mark TAJ (EUTM No. 012007258) was filed on 23 July 2013 and granted on 3 December 2013. Its holder did not renew the registration in due time (23 July 2023) or within the six-month grace period in accordance with Article 53(3) of Regulation 2017/1001. By notification dated 2 February 2024 and sent on 3 February 2024, the EUIPO informed the EUTM holder, pursuant to Article 53(8) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the expiry of the EUTM registration became effective on 23 July 2023 (‘the contested notification’). Furthermore, the EUTM holder was informed that if he considered this conclusion to be inaccurate, he could request a decision on the matter in writing within two months of notification. It was noted that such a decision would only be issued if the EUIPO did not share the view or, otherwise, the conclusion would be modified and the EUTM holder would be informed. On 26 March 2024, the EUTM holder filed an appeal requesting the total annulment of the contested notification and submitted a communication stating that, due to the removal of its representative, it was not aware of the notification of expiry. The communication concluded by adding that a statement of reasons would be submitted shortly. On 5 June 2024, the Registry of the Boards of Appeal notified the holder of the EUTM of an irregularity concerning the notice of appeal. It noted that, pursuant to Article 66(2) of Regulation 2017/1001, an appeal may only be lodged against a decision terminating the proceedings and that the appeal was therefore likely to be dismissed as inadmissible. The holder of EUTM was invited to submit observations and to provide the Board with any supporting evidence in relation to those findings within one month of receipt of the notification. The statement of reasons for the appeal was received on 3 July 2024, well after four months from the date of notification of the decision provided for in Article 68(1) of Regulation 2017/1001. Decision The Board of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible: The EUTM holder did not submit a statement of reasons within the relevant period (four months after the contested decision); and The contested notification is not a decision terminating the procedure and is therefore not subject to appeal. Commentary The decision handed down by the Board of Appeal is logical and unavoidable for formal and substantive reasons. The appellant did not submit her arguments within the four-month period. Even if it had done so, the appeal would still be inadmissible, since the EUIPO issued the notification under appeal for information purposes only, as the expiry of the EUTM registration due to non-renewal occurs ope legis. Cancellation will take effect from the day after the expiration date of the existing registration. In other words, the revocation of the EUTM registration did not occur as a consequence of the notification by the EUIPO, but had already occurred previously as the 10-year validity period and the subsequent six-month grace period had elapsed without the EUTM registration holder requesting renewal. José Ignacio San Martín, Associate Partner at ELZABURU. Originally published in WTR on October 18, 2024.
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.
The associate partners of Elzaburu, Pedro Saturio and José Ignacio San Martín talk about brand protection and industrial design in the world of sports Available in: Podcast: https://capitalradio-ondemand.flumotion.com/audio/mp3/ low/20180529_VENTAJALEGAL.mp3 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-YUyWYD3M4 Source: Capital Radio Author(s): Pedro Saturio Carrasco, José Ignacio San Martín Santamaría [Show News]