In light of the recent anniversary of the EU Trademark and Design Court, in this first installment we explore how the decision to establish this court in Alicante came about.
In this second installment, we will analyze the many changes the Court has undergone during its 20 years of existence. We will examine how it has evolved in terms of both its structure and its jurisdiction, and how it has established itself as a leading authority in the protection of industrial property rights in Europe.
Changes to the Court's Name and Structure: A Continuous Evolution
Over the past twenty years, the Alicante court specializing in trademarks and designs has undergone continuous evolution, evident in three key areas.
First, its name has changed several times. Initially known as the Community Trademark Court, it was renamed the European Union Trademark and Design Court, and more recently, the term “European Union Trademark Court of First Instance” has come into use.
These are not merely cosmetic changes; the latter name suggests a collegial approach by the courts with jurisdiction over the matter, similar to the Barcelona Patent Court of First Instance.
The Expansion of the Court: Creation of New Specialized Bodies
Another significant development is the expansion of the court system. While initially only Commercial Court No. 1 in Alicante had jurisdiction over disputes involving European Union trademarks and designs, Commercial Court No. 2 soon assumed these functions, and more recently, the newly created Commercial Court No. 4, also in Alicante. Only Commercial Court No. 3, located in Elche, has been excluded from this specialized jurisdiction.
This proliferation of courts may require a certain degree of collegial or coordinated action to prevent inconsistencies—both procedural and substantive—despite how unusual this may seem in the organization of the trial courts.
Expansion of Jurisdiction: New Frontiers in Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction has been the third area in which the Court has shown significant evolution. Since its inception, one of the most significant debates in litigation practice has been the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Union Trademark and Design Court. Originally limited to actions for infringement of European Union trademarks or designs, this restrictive approach was soon replaced by the application of the procedural principle of vis atractiva. This allowed the Court to hear actions for the invalidation of corporate names, infringement of national trademarks in conjunction with European Union trademarks, and copyright actions related to European Union trademarks.
This interpretation was subsequently endorsed by the legislature, which transformed what were initially jurisprudential criteria into statutory criteria. An example of this is the recent Organic Law 7/2022, which amended Article 86 quinquies of the LOPJ. This development has allowed the court to focus on what is truly essential: the development of a solid body of judicial doctrine.
In our next installment, we'll take a closer look at the achievements made possible by this specialization.
Ana Sanz, Associate Partner in the Litigation Practice Group at ELZABURU