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.

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

The holding of major international trade fairs such as Mobile World Congress 2026 involves a high concentration of commercial launches, technological innovations and new products, which significantly increases the risk of conflicts regarding industrial property, intellectual property and unfair competition. With the aim of ensuring effective and agile judicial protection during these events, the Commercial Courts have again activated the Duty and Rapid Action Service Protocol, which in 2026 will not only be applied to the MWC, but, for the first time, will also be extended to the Alimentaria and Hostelco trade shows. In this article we analyze the scope of the Protocol at MWC 2026, its main new features and its application to the Alimentaria and Hostelco trade shows, as well as the importance of adequate prior legal planning by participating companies. The Mobile World Congress 2026 Protocol: continuity and consolidation The Mobile World Congress 2026 will be held from March 2 to 5, 2026 and will once again bring together the main companies in the technology and telecommunications sector. As has been happening for more than a decade, the Commercial Courts of Barcelona, ​​together with the Commercial Courts of Alicante (European Union Trademark Court), have agreed to activate a specific protocol for on-call service and rapid action, applicable during the month prior to the event and, in a particularly intensive way, during the days of the congress. Activating this mechanism will respond to the possibility of conflicts between exhibiting companies, holders of industrial and intellectual property rights, which may give rise to a request for preliminary proceedings or precautionary measures. The objective of the system is to establish a preferential and urgent processing of this type of action, while guaranteeing the effectiveness of judicial protection during the event. Measures provided for in the Rapid Action Protocol The Protocol establishes a series of specific commitments by the judicial bodies, aimed at providing an agile response to conflicts that may arise during the congress. Priority processing of proceedings and precautionary measures The courts undertake to give priority processing to: Requests for preliminary proceedings and proceedings to verify facts. Requests for urgent precautionary measures, with or without a hearing of the defendant. These actions may refer, among others, to alleged infringements of patents, trademarks, industrial designs, intellectual property rights, as well as acts of unfair competition and illegal advertising, provided that they are related to products or services that are the subject of presentation, exhibition or promotion within the framework of the Mobile World Congress. Reduced resolution times The judicial agreement establishes especially short resolution times: A maximum period of 48 hours to resolve preliminary proceedings and precautionary measures without a hearing of the defendant. A maximum period of 10 days for the resolution of precautionary measures with scheduling of a hearing, provided that a preventive document has been submitted. Preventive writings The Protocol expressly contemplates the possibility of submitting preventive writings by those companies that, in the face of a potential conflict, reasonably fear being subject to a request for precautionary measures without a hearing. The admission of these documents is resolved within approximately 24 hours, allowing the judicial body to know in advance the position of the potential defendant. Expanded material scope: digital environments and artificial intelligence The scope of application of the Protocol expressly includes actions carried out: In virtual environments, online platforms or metaverse. Through content generated by automated systems or artificial intelligence, such as images, texts, videos, sounds, voices or algorithmic decisions. Extension of the Protocol to Alimentaria and Hostelco 2026 As a significant development in 2026, the Commercial Courts of Barcelona have agreed to extend the Protocol for on-call service and rapid action, initially designed for the Mobile World Congress, to the Alimentaria and Hostelco 2026 trade fairs, which will be held from March 23 to 26, 2026. This extension will allow the same system of preferential processing and urgent resolution to be applied to disputes that may arise in relation to food products, beverages, catering and hospitality equipment, and issues related to trademarks, designs, trade secrets, intellectual property rights and acts of unfair competition. The court agreement also places specific emphasis on protecting the confidentiality of sensitive information, in accordance with regulations on trade secrets. The importance of prior legal preparation The experience accumulated in previous editions of the Mobile World Congress shows that the correct use of the Protocol requires prior legal preparation on the part of the exhibiting companies. Early risk identification, analysis of one's own and third-party rights, and planning of possible legal actions are key elements to minimize incidents during the fair. Having expert advice before the start of the event allows companies to be in a better position both to react quickly to a possible infringement and to avoid unexpected precautionary measures that could affect their business activity or their launch strategy. Elzaburu and the MWC Protocol: proven experience At ELZABURU, we have played a relevant role in the practical application of the on-call and rapid response protocols associated with the Mobile World Congress, having participated in around 32% of the matters handled in this framework during the last 8 years. In the 2026 edition, and on the occasion of both the Mobile World Congress and Alimentaria and Hostelco, we will once again support our clients by implementing legal strategies adapted to this specific procedural system, aimed at ensuring effective protection of their industrial and intellectual property rights and properly managing the risks associated with their participation in these events.   María Cadarso, Senior Associate in the Legal Area of ​​ELZABURU.

The recent Supreme Court ruling confirming that "donut" and "Donuts®" are not the same thing puts an end to a lawsuit that began in 2017 and sends a strong message to the market: the inclusion of a term in the dictionary does not, in itself, eliminate the legal protection of a registered trademark. This resolution, of enormous relevance to business owners, managers and legal officers, clarifies the limits of descriptive use and strengthens the protection of renowned brands in Spain. The decision of the High Court, issued by the Civil Chamber on October 28, 2025, considers that the use of the term “Donut” by a third party was not a fair descriptive use and violated the trademark rights of Grupo Bimbo, owner of the well-known Donuts® brand. Origin of the dispute: generic use or trademark infringement? Atlanta Restauración Temática used the term "Donut" on its website to describe doughnuts marketed under its own brand, despite not owning the rights to that name. According to the defendant, it was a merely descriptive use of a pastry product. However, Bakery Donuts (currently Bimbo Donuts Iberia) considered that this use constituted an improper exploitation of the reputation of the Donuts® brand, a renowned brand with more than 70 registrations in the OEPM that include said name. After an initial dismissal in the first instance and its confirmation on appeal, the Supreme Court, in this recent ruling, reviews the matter on appeal and establishes doctrine on renowned trademarks. Donut vs. Donuts®: lexicalization is not vulgarization One of the central arguments of the litigation was the inclusion of the term “donut” (with an accent mark) in the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy. The Supreme Court clarifies a key issue: The RAE expressly recognizes the trademark origin of the term. This inclusion implies lexicalization, but does not imply a loss of distinctive character or vulgarization of the brand. The Supreme Court makes a precise distinction between: Lexicalization: incorporation of a term into common language. Loss of distinctiveness: a process of widespread use that turns a brand into a generic term, which has not occurred here. Therefore, Donuts® remains a fully protected trademark, even though the term "donut" exists in everyday language. The limits of descriptive use according to the Trademark Law Article 37 LM: the requirement of fairness The judgment is based on article 37 of the Trademark Law, which allows the descriptive use of signs belonging to others only if it is done in accordance with fair practices in industrial and commercial matters. The Supreme Court concludes that, in this case, such loyalty was not present, especially since it was a renowned brand. Even a seemingly descriptive use can be unlawful if: It creates a mental link with the protected trademark. It produces a dilution of the distinctive character. It implies a loss of prestige. It implies parasitism, that is, benefiting from the brand's power of attraction without contributing any value of your own. Relevant details valued by the Court The Supreme Court highlights several elements that reinforce the infringement: The use of the term “DONUT” in capital letters, coinciding with the registered form. The absence of the accent mark and the lowercase letter (“donut”) recognized by the RAE. The existence of valid descriptive alternatives, such as "roscos", "rosquillas" or "berlinas", which would have avoided the use of the other brand. Frequently Asked Questions about Trademark Litigation: Can I use a word if it appears in the dictionary? Not necessarily. The fact that a term appears in the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy) does not authorize its unlimited use in economic transactions, especially if it coincides with a registered and renowned trademark. Is descriptive use always permissible? No. Descriptive use must be fair and not harm the legitimate interests of the trademark owner. In renowned brands, the level of demand is higher. Is confusion necessary for an infringement to exist? Not in the case of renowned brands. It is sufficient that the use evokes the brand and generates an improper use or a reduction of its value. What consequences can such an infraction have? The immediate cessation of the infringing use and, in certain cases, compensation. In this matter, the Court does not award damages because it concerns a limited use that has already been withdrawn. Did the Supreme Court analyze the concept of secondary meaning in this ruling? No. The Supreme Court did not analyze the concept of secondary meaning nor did it base its decision on the acquisition of subsequent distinctiveness. The legal analysis focused exclusively on the limits of descriptive use provided for in Article 37 of the Trademark Law and on the requirement that such use be fair, especially when it is a renowned trademark. A key precedent for business strategy This ruling sets a relevant precedent in industrial property, making it clear that: The presence of a brand in everyday language does not automatically weaken its protection. Companies should exercise extreme caution when using terms that coincide with well-known brands, even for descriptive purposes. The branding and commercial communication strategy should always be analyzed from a preventive legal perspective.   At Elzaburu we have extensive experience in industrial and intellectual property litigation and in strategic advice for the protection of intangible assets. Our team assists companies in preventing legal risks and defending their trademark rights, patents, industrial designs and copyrights, with a rigorous approach focused on legal security.   María Cadarso, Senior Associate specializing in Litigation.

Lawsuits in Spain: From Reform to Reform. Now that the implementation of the major procedural reform of Organic Law 1/2025 is culminating, with the transformation on December 31st of the Courts of First Instance into Courts of First Instance in almost all districts of the country, it is worth looking back to remember that today marks exactly 25 years since another momentous reform came into force, the one that brought with it a new civil procedure. This is, as everyone will recall, Law 1/2000, of January 7th, on Civil Procedure. And how many parallels can be observed between the two reforms! Two reforms destined to change the Justice system. Both inaugurated the legislative year under the number 1 and during the Christmas period; both were presented as the great panacea for justice reform; both were given a one-year timeframe for their full implementation; Both were the subject, in the days and weeks leading up to their implementation, of anguished calls for a moratorium from a wide variety of groups and social actors. Twenty-five years of legislative changes. But there is one fact in the subsequent evolution of the Civil Procedure Law, whose twenty-fifth anniversary we celebrate today, that should not be overlooked when assessing the merits of this latest reform with which we begin the new year. Having been hailed at the time as the definitive modernization of the judicial system in our country, Law 1/2000 has undergone no fewer than 35 legislative modifications since its enactment. The penultimate one, precisely, was the one that established Organic Law 1/2025. Procedural reforms and recurring expectations. And indeed, all procedural reforms claim to be the perfect "cure" for the endemic "ills" that plague judicial processes, until they are replaced by another subsequent law that adheres to the same "active principle." Trust in legal professionals. Let's keep our fingers crossed and trust that the combined efforts of judges, court clerks, lawyers, and solicitors will help overcome uncertainties and obstacles for the benefit of those who need to go to court to exercise their right to access justice. Enrique Armijo, Partner specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition.

In an increasingly competitive and globalized market, brands not only identify products or services, but also concentrate reputation, trust and commercial value. When conflicts arise over the use of a trademark, the outcome of litigation can directly impact a company's viability and prestige. In this article we review what trademark litigation is, why it occurs, some examples of real cases and what measures can be taken to prevent it.   What are trademark disputes? A trademark dispute is a judicial or administrative proceeding that arises when there is a conflict over the use, registration, or protection of a trademark. These processes can be brought in national, European or international courts, depending on the scope of the dispute. Generally, trademark disputes focus on aspects such as: Infringement: improper use of a trademark registered by a third party. Nullity: challenge to a trademark registration for not meeting legal requirements. Expiration: loss of rights due to lack of use, vulgarization or other causes. Unfair competition: use of distinctive signs that generate confusion in the market. The relevance of these lawsuits is twofold: on the one hand, they protect the trademark holder and, on the other, they contribute to guaranteeing a fair and transparent market for consumers.   Main reasons why trademark disputes arise Trademark conflicts have various causes, although they usually focus on the following: 1. Similarity between distinctive signs is one of the most common reasons. When two brands have graphic, phonetic, or conceptual similarities, it can cause confusion for the consumer. 2. Unauthorized use of a well-known or renowned trademark. Trademarks with great recognition have reinforced protection. Misuse by third parties, even in different sectors, may lead to litigation. 3. Bad faith registrations There are cases in which a person or company registers a trademark with the intention of blocking or taking advantage of someone else's reputation, generating legal disputes. 4. International conflicts In a globalized context, many companies expand into new markets and encounter prior registrations or conflicting uses in other jurisdictions.   Examples of real rulings in trademark litigation: Analysis of case law provides keys to understanding how courts interpret trademark rights. Next, we will summarize some paradigmatic cases: The Maria Callas case: reputation is not enough without a connection to concrete products. An example of trademark litigation is that relating to the name of Maria Callas, the famous Greek soprano. The artist's heirs tried to prevent the registration of a figurative trademark in the EUIPO that included her name, applied to products in class 16 (stationery). The opposition was based on three main arguments: The ownership of a prior trademark registered in the European Union, of a nominative nature, with the name “Maria Callas”. The prior commercial use of the name in different markets. The notorious reputation of the name Maria Callas in the EU, which, according to opponents, deserved enhanced protection. However, the EUIPO Opposition Division rejected the claim for several compelling reasons: No risk of confusion: the products in question (stationery) were not related to the sectors in which prior use of the name had been proven. Insufficient evidence of reputation in class 16: it was not shown that the public associated the name of Maria Callas with stationery items, nor that such use harmed the brand. Formal deficiencies in the opposition: part of the documentation was submitted in Greek without the corresponding English translation, which weakened the claim. This case is a clear example of how the fame of a person or a distinctive sign is not enough, by itself, to block registrations in all classes of products or services. To succeed in an opposition, it is essential to prove a real and specific connection between the trademark and the products or services in question, as well as an effective risk of confusion or unfair advantage.   Choco Flakes case: trademark infringement and unfair competition in the food sector Another example in trademark litigation is the confrontation between Cuétara and Gullón over the use of similar packaging in the marketing of cookies. In this case, Cuétara sued Gullón for unfair competition, considering that the marketing of the “Choco Cereales” cookies improperly imitated both the figurative trademark “Choco Flakes” and the packaging with which Cuétara distinguished its products. These trademarks were duly registered with the OEPM and the EUIPO. The matter reached the Provincial Court of Alicante, which acts as the European Union Trademark Court. The ruling confirmed the infringement of Cuétara's rights and established several key points: Proven notoriety: the court recognized that Cuétara's brands were renowned in the biscuit and cereal sector, which strengthens the level of protection against third parties. Similarity of packaging: both featured an identical product (cookies on milk in a bowl), accompanied by children's characters of a similar style, elements that generated a close perception in the consumer. Association in the relevant public: despite certain graphic differences, the court understood that the public would associate the Gullón brands with those of Cuétara, given the visual and conceptual proximity of the packaging. Unfair advantage: the resolution concluded that Gullón benefited from the prestige and reputation of Cuétara's brands, constituting a clear case of trademark parasitism. Consequently, the ruling determined that: The use of Choco Cereales packaging infringed both Spanish trademarks and European Union trademarks owned by Cuétara. Gullón was required to remove the offending packaging from the market and proceed with its destruction, as well as refrain from using it again. This case is a good example of how the courts protect not only the trademark itself, but also the set of graphic and commercial elements that may induce the consumer to...Read more

Over the past decade, CrossFit has evolved from a functional training trend to a global discipline with millions of followers and more than 12.000 affiliated centers worldwide. This expansion has brought with it a parallel phenomenon: the rise of piracy and counterfeiting in sports, especially the misuse of registered trademarks such as "CrossFit." This situation affects both rights holders and consumers, who may be deceived by receiving a service that does not meet the quality standards associated with the brand. CrossFit Piracy: A Growing Problem CrossFit is not only synonymous with a high-intensity functional training method, it is also a registered trademark. This distinction is essential to understanding the legal issues surrounding its use. While the training system (based on routines like burpees, snatches, or AMRAPs) can be freely practiced by any individual or gym, the use of the name “CrossFit” is legally protected. That is, a center can offer similar training without legal issues, but it cannot use the CrossFit brand if it does not have the appropriate license. The unauthorized use of the name "CrossFit" by unaffiliated gyms constitutes a clear form of sports piracy. These centers take advantage of the brand's notoriety and prestige to attract customers, without meeting the certification or training requirements or paying the licensing fees required by the brand. This practice not only infringes industrial property rights, but also represents unfair competition for centers that operate within the established legal framework, investing in training and quality standards. Sports Piracy: How CrossFit Inc. Defends Its Legal Defense has adopted an active and global stance in defending its brand. The company has implemented a surveillance network that combines technology with the collaboration of its affiliate community. Anyone can report misuse of the trademark through a complaint form available on the official website. This network allows for the detection of CrossFit piracy cases at different levels, from large chains to small neighborhood gyms. What protocol does Crossfit follow regarding misuse of the trademark? The action protocol begins with a friendly communication in which the offender is asked to cease misusing the trademark on elements such as social media, boards, posters, or t-shirts. If a satisfactory response is not obtained, the case is transferred to the legal team in the relevant country. In the case of Spain, this role is played by the firm Elzaburu, which represents CrossFit Inc. since 2015. In the last 10 years, 15 legal proceedings have been initiated in Spain, six of which have resulted in convictions. Currently, there are eight active lawsuits pending before various national courts, although a significant portion of the disputes are resolved before reaching trial. The claims have reached as high as €30.000, a figure that may seem modest, but it reflects that, in most cases, they are resolved before the lawsuit becomes complicated. Counterfeiting in sports and its impact on the market The phenomenon of counterfeiting in sports is not new, but in fast-growing disciplines like CrossFit, it takes on a particular dimension. The professional appearance of many illegal centers, the use of similar terminology, and the proliferation of social media as promotional channels make it difficult to distinguish between what is official and what is unauthorized. Added to this is the creation of camouflaged names such as "XtremFit", "CrossBattle" or "GarageWarriors". This practice is a clear example of unfair competition, as it creates consumer confusion and undermines the efforts of those who comply with regulations. Furthermore, piracy in CrossFit erodes the value of the brand, which has invested for years in consolidating its reputation and offering a differentiated sports experience. CrossFit's legal strategy seeks to preserve not only the rights derived from trademark registration, but also to protect a business model based on certified training, standardized quality, and consumer trust. In this context, piracy in CrossFit represents not only a trademark infringement, but a structural risk that affects the identity and sustainability of the ecosystem created around this discipline. Defending industrial property rights in the field of sports is crucial to preserving market integrity and protecting both rights holders and consumers. At Elzaburu, we continue working to ensure that trademark owners can effectively exercise their rights, promoting an environment of fair competition and respect for the law. Carlos Morán, Partner in the Legal Department of Elzaburu.

The annual Mobile World Congress, the largest mobile phone and technology fair in the world, is approaching. As usual, the event will take place at the Fira de Barcelona exhibition centre over 4 days, this year starting on Monday 3rd March and concluding on Thursday 6th March. Risks for exhibitors as a result of conflicts over patents, trademarks, designs or copyrights Since more than 2,000 leading companies in the sector participate in this congress, presenting new telephony products, mobile applications and software innovations worldwide, the Mobile World Congress becomes each year a scenario prone to potential conflicts between companies, mainly due to possible infringements of industrial and intellectual property. The main risks faced by exhibitors are three: 1. Requests for precautionary measures against exhibiting companies. In past editions of the MWC, the Courts of Barcelona and Alicante have processed a high number of requests for precautionary measures inaudita parte within 48 hours and without prior notice to exhibitors. In some cases, the defendant companies were able to lift the precautionary measures by providing a substitute bond. In others, the lack of reaction from the exhibitors or the failure to deposit that security determined the maintenance of the precautionary measures throughout the Congress. 2. On-site fact-checking procedures during the Congress. In addition to precautionary measures, the Courts have also processed, in some editions of the MWC, a number of requests for fact-checking proceedings aimed at obtaining information, at the Congress itself, about the exhibiting companies, their products and technical data. 3. Judicial presence at exhibitors' stands. The risk posed by precautionary measures and fact-finding proceedings is even greater if we take into account that, in previous editions, notification of the court ruling and its execution by requiring the withdrawal of the products on display occurred once the Congress had begun through the presence - albeit discreet - of judges and police authorities at the exhibitors' stands. It is therefore essential that exhibitors develop a prior strategy to enforce their patent, trademark, design or copyright rights and avoid incidents. Protocol for On-call Service and Rapid Action: a set of precautionary measures for the protection of industrial and intellectual property rights In the face of these conflicts, for years, the Commercial Court of Barcelona, ​​and also the EU Trademark Court of Alicante, have implemented a Protocol for On-call Service and Rapid Action. This Protocol has the dual purpose of avoiding, as far as possible, the adoption of precautionary measures without hearing the defendant and, at the same time, implementing effective measures for the protection of said rights. Under this Protocol, the Courts undertake to decide on the admission of requests for preventive written submissions (intended to avoid the adoption of precautionary measures without a hearing of the defendant) on the same day of their submission (within 24 hours). In addition, they undertake to resolve requests for precautionary measures within a period of 2 days (48 hours), scheduling a hearing within 10 days if a preventive document has been submitted. The Protocol will enter into force on 1 February and will remain active until the last day of the congress, 6 March. It is therefore time for companies participating in the Mobile World Congress to act in advance and take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of their rights, avoiding possible setbacks during the fair. At ELZABURU we have played a significant role, participating in around 25% of the cases resolved by the Courts in application of the Mobile World Congress Protocol in the last 7 years. This year, the firm will once again provide its support to clients, implementing measures both to effectively safeguard its industrial and intellectual property rights, and to avoid any risk of possible unexpected actions by third parties that could compromise its normal participation in the imminent congress. María Cadarso, Elzaburu Legal Area Associate

There are procedural reforms that are simply patches to correct deficiencies in the system or that fill gaps that practice has revealed. Others, however, are of such magnitude that they forever transform the face of litigation or judicial organization. As if it were a gift from the Three Kings, on January 7, 25 years ago, the legislator presented us with a Law that marked a before and after in the history of Spanish procedural law. What impact did Law 1/2000 on Civil Procedure have? Law 1/2000, in effect, opted for a model of civil procedure with an antagonistic profile to that which had been in force in Spain since… 1881! The law proposed such a change in the ways and manners of Civil Justice and in the habits of the professionals who operated around it (Judges, lawyers, solicitors, court clerks), that a vacatio of one year was necessary until it came into force. Our Litigation team at that time, with Enrique Armijo and Carlos Morán among them, witnessed the impact that the publication of this Law represented and the efforts of all parties to familiarize themselves with its articles and to resolve the doubts and questions that it raised. All those who were working at that time to defend industrial and intellectual property rights, having overcome the initial resistance to a paradigm shift, wholeheartedly applauded the new system. The law advocated an Anglo-Saxon model of proceedings based on principles (orality, immediacy, concentration) that fit very well with the requirements of litigation regarding patents, trademarks or copyrights. “It was a year of anxiety, hope, fear and excitement in anticipation of the new ordinary trial taking place in the forum,” Enrique Armijo reminds us. It should not be forgotten that the Law affected all spheres of claims in industrial and intellectual property: the introduction of a general process of preliminary proceedings, the explicit regulation of precautionary measures with and without hearing, the ordering of expert evidence. And a particularly exciting procedural process. “How many sleepless nights we have to deal with the challenges of oral proceedings during the preliminary hearing and the trial!” confesses Carlos Morán. How the Law has evolved since 2000 Although the Law was presented as the definitive modernisation of the Spanish civil process and enjoyed an indisputable technical perfection, time has passed and the reforms have followed their course. Suffice it to say that in these 25 years Law 1/2000 has been modified no less than 50 times. The latest one was as recent as it was produced at the beginning of the year and during the judicial vacation period, treacherously: Organic Law 1/2025, of January 2, on measures regarding the efficiency of the Public Justice Service. But this is another story. Let us pay, for the moment, a nostalgic tribute to Law 1/2000. Enrique Armijo (Partner in the legal area of ​​Elzaburu) and Carlos Morán (Partner in the legal area of ​​Elzaburu)

After reviewing the achievements and evolution of the European Union Trademark and Design Court, in this fourth and final installment on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, we will reflect on the challenges facing this judicial body in the current context. With the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, the Alicante court is in a key position to assume an even more relevant role in international litigation. We will look at the opportunities and challenges that Brexit brings and how the court can strengthen its role in the future. Brexit: an opportunity for the Alicante Court? Who could have imagined that the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union could have, as a side effect, a strengthening of the role of the Spanish court in international litigation regarding trademarks. But that is the case, or could be the case, if certain key factors are considered in this context. The starting point is that the Trademark and Design Court of the European Union of Alicante, since the headquarters of the EUIPO is located in this city, has residual jurisdiction to hear infringement actions brought between subjects who do not have a domicile in Europe. This jurisdiction makes Alicante a potentially central forum for the resolution of international disputes regarding industrial property, especially in the post-Brexit environment. The need to consolidate leadership The United Kingdom, being one of the leading countries in terms of the number of applications for EU trade marks and a relevant player in international trade, is now facing a significant change in its participation in the EU trade mark system. With the EU's exit, legal actions brought by British owners against companies based outside the EU, as well as those brought by the latter against British companies, could begin to migrate to Alicante. Of course, this prominence is not automatic and must be earned. The more or less flexible concept of domicile in Europe that the Court of Justice is developing could encourage or not the flight from litigation to other jurisdictions. But this would not be the case if the Spanish court were to establish itself as a European benchmark in this matter. On the contrary, in addition to this residual forum, there are certain possibilities of forum shopping for EU trademarks that could create an attractive prospect for litigation in Spain. In this sense, the young court of Alicante faces a challenge and a historic opportunity to reaffirm its position in the European judicial panorama. Challenges and projections of the EU Trademark and Design Court It must be said, to begin with the most circumstantial, that a new City of Justice is under construction in Alicante. Given the international dimension of the lawsuits, it is legitimate to demand that in the new building to be inaugurated (in 2025?) the European Union Trademark and Design Court (the common courtroom that the three existing courts could have) should offer the best possible image of our country.  But an emblematic setting is not enough in the staging of the Court. It is also necessary to reinforce the unification of doctrine of the three courts, always under the umbrella of the Eighth Section of the Provincial Court, through formulas such as the one already mentioned of a certain collegial action. There is no room for procedural prejudice when the prestige of Spanish institutions in the world is at stake. Until then, it will be necessary to end this commemorative series as it was started: with a warm congratulation to the court on its twentieth anniversary. If twenty years is nothing for the song, for the European Union Trademark and Design Court they have been years of construction, specialization and consolidation. As lawyers, we can only express our gratitude for their work, hoping that it will continue to be a pillar in the defence of industrial property rights in Europe. Carlos Morán, Partner in the Litigation Area of ​​ELZABURU