CONTEXT
The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the organization responsible for protecting the Champagne protected designation of origin (PDO), detected the use of the term “Champanillo” to identify a chain of tapas bars in Catalonia, as well as its use in domain names, social media, and promotional materials.
In the European Union, PDOs are subject to a specific protection regime at the Union level, as set forth in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, which ensures their protection against misuse in all Member States.
The main legal challenge in this case stemmed from the fact that the products in question were not comparable to Champagne, but rather restaurant services, which raised a key question: Can there be an infringement of a PDO when the sign is used for services rather than products?
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
The argument in this case was based on a central idea: the protection of designations of origin is not limited to identical or similar products, but must extend to those uses that evoke a certain association in the consumer’s mind.
If the use of the “Champanillo” trademark led the average consumer to think directly of Champagne, protection should be granted, regardless of whether it was used to identify tapas bars rather than sparkling wines.
Furthermore, that association in the consumer’s mind also constituted an improper exploitation of the reputation associated with the Champagne designation of origin: the mark benefited from the prestige, recognition, and value built up by the PDO.
This approach required going beyond traditional analysis and relying on the European framework (EU Regulation 1308/2013). Consequently, the case led to a preliminary ruling requested by the Provincial Court of Barcelona before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which proved decisive in clarifying and defining the limits of protection for designations of origin.
CASE DEVELOPMENT
The process spanned nearly a decade and went through several stages before this shift in approach was finalized.
Following an initial unfavorable ruling at the trial court level, the Provincial Court of Barcelona referred the matter to the CJEU, shifting the focus of the debate from the similarity between products to the concept of evocation.
Until then, the Court of Justice had interpreted—in various decisions, including the judgments of June 7, 2018, in Case C-44/17, and December 17, 2020, in Case C-490/19—the concept of evocation of a PDO, but it had never specifically ruled on the question of whether the protection afforded by designations of origin extends not only to conduct related to products but also to services.
The CJEU’s response, in its September 9, 2021, judgment (Case C-783/19), was decisive. It confirmed that the protection of appellations of origin also extends to services, provided that the use of the sign creates a sufficiently direct link between the protected appellation and the consumer.
Based on that criterion, the Provincial Court reviewed the case and concluded that the use of “Champanillo” constituted an infringement by association. In reaching this conclusion, the court did not limit itself to a nominal analysis but rather assessed the totality of the circumstances: the clear phonetic and conceptual similarity between the signs, the inclusion of the term “champán” in the disputed sign, its use in contexts related to the consumption of beverages, and, in particular, the unfair exploitation of the reputation associated with Champagne.
RESULT
On April 8, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld in its entirety the ruling issued by the Provincial Court of Barcelona, applying the doctrine established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This brought the proceedings to a close, thereby consolidating the approach that had been adopted.
In line with the CJEU’s interpretation, the ruling reaffirms that an infringement occurs when the PDO “Champagne” is invoked, even in the absence of identity or similarity between products, and that this protection also extends to services when the use of the sign creates a sufficiently direct association in the mind of the consumer. It also confirms that such uses may constitute an unfair exploitation of the reputation associated with the designation of origin.
In accordance with these principles, the Supreme Court upholds the order to cease use of the “Champanillo” trademark, remove related materials, and cancel the associated digital assets.
Beyond its specific effects, the ruling marks a milestone in the interpretation of the concept of “evocation” of PDOs under Spanish law. The Supreme Court expressly incorporates the CJEU’s criteria and integrates them into national judicial practice, thereby establishing 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 by confirming that the protection of PDOs does not depend on the similarity between products, but rather on the sign’s ability to trigger an association with the protected designation in the consumer’s mind.
Carlos Morán, partner in the Legal Department
The case has been led by Carlos Morán, a partner in the Legal Department at ELZABURU, who has advised the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne since the beginning of the proceedings, coordinating the legal strategy throughout all its phases and helping to establish this precedent.
His work in defending the Champagne PDO has been recognized internationally by the Comité Champagne itself, with his appointment as Knight of the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne, a distinction the Committee awards to legal professionals who have distinguished themselves in the legal protection of this designation of origin at the international level.
Organizing cultural and festive events often involves commissioning or using creative works, such as posters, illustrations, or graphic designs. These creations are protected by intellectual property laws, which require the author’s permission for their use.
A ruling handed down by a commercial court has reiterated that the substantial reproduction of a work without permission—even if formal variations are introduced—may constitute plagiarism and result in financial liability for the person who uses it.
The dispute arose after it was discovered that the promotional poster for the Don Benito (Badajoz) City Council’s Carnival had allegedly been plagiarized—or at least inspired by—the one designed by Torres Franquis 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 concerned the main element of the design: a “chicharro” fish depicted in a distinctive graphic style that had become a visual symbol of the original event.
The poster used by the town in Extremadura retained that same central motif, changing only the colors, adding some decorative elements to the background, and substituting the typeface.
After sending several letters without receiving a response, the creator filed a lawsuit seeking:
The judge ruled that the modifications made by the city council lacked sufficient creative substance to constitute a new work.
Despite these modifications, the essential features of the original design remained: the same dominant element, a matching graphic configuration, and a substantially identical structure. The similarity was therefore recognizable and relevant from a legal standpoint.
On that basis, the ruling finds that the use of the poster without the author’s authorization constitutes a copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law. Furthermore, it also finds that moral rights have been infringed, in particular the right to the integrity of the work and the right to be identified as the author.
The Don Benito City Council argued that ownership of the rights belonged to the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, since it was the entity that had 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 owner of the rights, while the city council held only a right of use under the agreed terms, without the authority to freely dispose of the work.
The ruling set total compensation at 6,500 euros, distinguishing between two categories:
In addition, it was agreed that:
This case highlights that the concept of “inspiration” has clear legal boundaries in the context of intellectual property. When a new creation reproduces the essential and recognizable elements of a prior work—even if it incorporates incidental or decorative changes—it cannot be considered independent.
Simply changing colors, fonts, or minor details does not alter this conclusion if the substantial identity of the design is preserved. In such cases, the use of the work without authorization constitutes unauthorized exploitation and, therefore, a copyright infringement.
The ruling under review confirms this approach by finding plagiarism despite the changes made and by recognizing both the financial and emotional harm resulting from the institutional use of the poster.
Proper management of intellectual property rights and respect for authorship are essential to preventing unauthorized use of creative works and the resulting financial and legal liabilities arising from their improper exploitation.
Elzaburu provides advice on the protection, defense, and litigation of copyrights and other intangible assets, drawing on constantly updated knowledge of applicable regulations and case law.
Carlos Morán, a partner at Elzaburu specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition.
The hosting of major international trade shows such as the Mobile World Congress 2026 involves a high concentration of commercial launches, technological innovations, and new products, which significantly increases the risk of disputes regarding industrial property, intellectual property, and unfair competition. To ensure effective and prompt judicial protection during these events, the Commercial Courts have once again activated the On-Call and Rapid Response Protocol, which in 2026 will not only apply to the MWC but, for the first time, will also extend to the Alimentaria and Hostelco.
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 advance legal planning by participating companies.
The Mobile World Congress 2026 will be held from March 2 to 5, 2026, and will once again bring together the leading companies in the technology and telecommunications sectors. As has been the case 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 duty and rapid response, applicable during the month leading up to the event and, particularly intensively, during the days of the congress.
The activation of this system will address potential conflicts between exhibiting companies and holders of industrial and intellectual property rights that may give rise to requests for preliminary proceedings or injunctive relief. The system’s objective is to facilitate expedited and priority processing of such proceedings, while ensuring the effectiveness of judicial protection during the event.
The Protocol establishes a series of specific commitments on the part of the judicial bodies, aimed at providing a prompt response to any disputes that may arise during the conference.
The courts are committed to giving priority processing to:
These actions may relate, among other things, to alleged infringements of patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and intellectual property rights, as well as acts of unfair competition and unlawful advertising, provided that they are related to products or services being presented, exhibited, or promoted at the Mobile World Congress.
The court settlement sets particularly short deadlines for resolution:
The Protocol expressly provides for the possibility of companies filing preventive briefs when, in the face of a potential dispute, they have reasonable grounds to fear that they may be the subject of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief without a hearing. A decision on whether to accept these briefs is made within approximately 24 hours, allowing the court to become aware of the potential defendant’s position in advance.
The scope of application of the Protocol expressly includes actions taken:
In a significant development for 2026, the Commercial Courts of Barcelona have agreed to extend the On-Call and Rapid Response Protocol—initially designed for the Mobile World Congress—to the Alimentaria and Hostelco 2026 trade shows, which will be held from March 23 to 26, 2026.
This extension will allow the same system of expedited processing and urgent resolution to be applied to disputes that may arise in connection with food products, beverages, restaurant and hospitality equipment, and matters 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.
Experience gained from previous editions of the Mobile World Congress shows that proper use of the Protocol requires advance legal preparation on the part of exhibiting companies. Identifying risks in advance, analyzing one’s own rights and those of third parties, and planning for potential legal proceedings are key to minimizing incidents during the event.
Having access to expert advice before the event begins puts companies in a better position both to respond quickly to a potential infringement and to avoid unexpected injunctive relief that could affect their business operations or launch strategy.
At ELZABURU, we have played a significant role in the practical implementation of the on-call and rapid response protocols associated with the Mobile World Congress, having participated in approximately 32% of the cases handled within this framework over the past 8 years.
At the 2026 edition, and in conjunction with the Mobile World Congress, Alimentaria, and Hostelco, we will once again support our clients by implementing legal strategies tailored to this specific procedural framework, 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 Department at ELZABURU.
The recent Supreme Court ruling confirming that “dónut” and “Donuts®” are not the same brings an end to a legal dispute that began in 2017 and sends a strong message to the market: the inclusion of a term in the dictionary does not, in and of itself, eliminate the legal protection of a registered trademark. This ruling, which is of enormous importance to business owners, executives, and legal counsel, clarifies the limits of descriptive use and strengthens the protection of well-known trademarks in Spain.
The High Court’s decision, issued by the Civil Division on October 28, 2025, held that a third party’s use of the term “Donut” was not a fair descriptive use and infringed upon the trademark rights of the Bimbo Group, owner of the well-known Donuts® trademark.
Atlanta Restauración Temática used the term “Donut” on its website to describe donuts sold under its own brand, even though it did not hold any rights to that name. In the defendant’s view, this was merely a descriptive use of the term for a baked good.
However, Bakery Donuts (now Bimbo Donuts Iberia) considered that such use constituted an improper exploitation of the reputation of the Donuts® brand, a well-known trademark with more than 70 registrations with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) that include that name.
Following an initial dismissal at the trial court level and the affirmation of that decision on appeal, the Supreme Court, in this recent ruling, reviewed the case on cassation and established legal precedent regarding well-known trademarks.
One of the central issues in the case was the inclusion of the term “dónut” (with an accent) in the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy. The Supreme Court clarifies a key point:
The High Court makes a clear distinction between:
Therefore, Donuts® remains a fully protected trademark, even though the term “doughnut” exists in everyday language.
The ruling is based on Article 37 of the Trademark Law, which permits the descriptive use of third-party marks only if it is done in accordance with fair industrial and commercial practices.
The Supreme Court concludes that, in this case, such good faith was not present, particularly because the trademark in question is a well-known one. Even seemingly descriptive use may be unlawful if:
The Supreme Court highlights several factors that support the finding of a violation:
Not necessarily. The fact that a term appears in the RAE does not authorize its unrestricted use in commercial transactions, especially if it coincides with a well-known registered trademark.
No. Descriptive use must be fair and must not harm the legitimate interests of the trademark owner. For well-known trademarks, the standard is higher.
This is not the case with well-known trademarks. It is sufficient that the use evokes the trademark and results in an improper exploitation or a diminution of its value.
Immediate cessation of the infringing use and, in certain cases, compensation. In this case, the Court does not award damages because the use was limited and has already been discontinued.
No. The Supreme Court did not analyze the concept of “secondary meaning” nor did it base its decision on the acquisition of acquired distinctiveness. The legal analysis focused exclusively on the limits of descriptive use set forth in Article 37 of the Trademark Law and on the requirement that such use be fair, especially in the case of a well-known trademark.
This ruling sets an important precedent in intellectual property law by making it clear that:
At Elzaburu, we have extensive experience in industrial and intellectual property litigation and in providing strategic advice on the protection of intangible assets. Our team works with companies to prevent legal risks and defend their trademark, patent, industrial design, and copyright rights, using a rigorous approach focused on legal certainty.
María Cadarso, Senior Associate specializing in Litigation.
Today we spoke with Carlos Morán, a partner at Elzaburu who specializes in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition, about a recent Supreme Court ruling that has generated interest in the field of copyright and co-authorship in artists’ studios. Below, Carlos answers a series of questions that help clarify the practical scope of this ruling and the implications it may have for artists, collaborators, and professionals in the sector.
The September 30, 2025, ruling by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court addresses, for virtually the first time, the issue of determining the authorship of works of art created in the context of an artist’s studio, but the reality is that the appeal had very little room for maneuver, and the Supreme Court essentially upheld the appellate ruling issued by Section 28 of the Provincial Court of Madrid on March 21, 2021. The case before the Supreme Court was already weighed down by the evidence presented at the trial court level and by the forcefulness of the appellate ruling. The Supreme Court adds little to it. The cassation ruling accepts as valid the facts found to be proven in light of the evidence presented and the legal rulings of the Provincial Court. The limitations inherent in the cassation appeal did the rest.
Rather than legal principles, the Supreme Court has taken into account the facts that emerge from the evidence presented, namely:
The Supreme Court’s ruling notes on several occasions that, according to the Provincial Court—whose assessment of the facts and evidence must be respected—the tasks performed by the plaintiff were “extremely important” and not merely “ancillary” or “complementary” to those of the defendant.
The existence of an employment relationship between the parties, as established in a prior labor court ruling, was not taken into account by the Supreme Court due to a procedural issue: labor court rulings are not binding on civil courts. In a sense, the facts and evidence directly presented in the civil lawsuit take precedence over the precedents derived from the labor court ruling.
That said, it stands to reason that the existence of an employment relationship does not prejudge—for better or for worse—the facts of the case, which must be proven on a case-by-case basis. It is another matter entirely that the employment contract, as we will discuss later, may specify or emphasize certain conditions or characteristics that refute the notion that the tasks performed by the assistant or collaborator involve creativity.
The fact that the co-author created the work on her own is yet another circumstance that demonstrates to the court— when considered in conjunction with all the other factors—that she imbued the works with her own personality or was in a position to do so. The ability to make choices is best exercised in solitude.
This is essentially a declaratory judgment (recognizing the plaintiff’s status as a co-author of the 221 works) that includes a single order of relief: the defendant must publish, at his own expense, an announcement in a nationally circulated art magazine stating that the plaintiff has been recognized as a co-author of the 221 works listed in the judgment.
Artists’ studios have been a constant feature in the history of art and are not called into question by this legal precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling, in fact, expressly addresses any misinterpretation of its decisions and any attempt to extrapolate or generalize its doctrine to the current situation of any artist’s studio. On this point, the ruling expressly states: it is not a matter of saying that any technical assistant in a studio can be considered the author of an artistic work in which they participated, but rather that “in this particular case,” the plaintiff, in the solitude of the studio, was capable of giving form to the defendant’s ideas by making her own decisions based on her personality.
That doesn't mean we can't learn from this situation:
From a practical standpoint, it does not appear that the ruling will have any effects on the artist beyond the reputational aspect. All indications are that the paintings were commissioned and had already been sold, so their commercial exploitation has been virtually exhausted.
Otherwise, the artist has not lost his status as the author; it is simply that he must share that status with the plaintiff. In practice, this means only that if the artist wishes to refer to those 221 paintings, he would have to state (make it clear) that the plaintiff is a co-author.
It appears, as we have already noted, that the witness testimony and the defendant’s cross-examination may have been decisive for the Provincial Court in determining how the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s workshop. These cross-examinations seem to have taken precedence over the expert opinion submitted by the defendant, the content of which is not sufficiently addressed in the judgment.
The ruling does not constitute“case law”in the strict sense, as it is practically the first of its kind. It is a ruling that relies largely on the CJEU’s doctrine regarding authorship/originality and cites a foreign precedent (the French ruling in the Renoir case). The Supreme Court itself also rules out a broad interpretation extending to other cases and emphasizes that its decision is based on the specific circumstances of this case.
However, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the collaborator rather than the artist could lead to the mistaken belief that the floodgates have opened and that any“assistant”can follow the plaintiff’s example. It is necessary to guard against this kind of interpretation.
Given that the ruling should not cause anyone alarm, it is advisable for artists who work in a studio setting with collaborators to take this opportunity to review their contractual and factual situations to determine whether or not there is any risk to them arising from the ruling’s findings.
Now that the implementation of the sweeping procedural reform under Organic Law 1/2025 has been completed—with the transformation, on December 31 of last year, of the courts of first instance into District Courts in nearly all judicial districts nationwide—it is worth looking back to recall that exactly 25 years ago today, another momentous reform took effect, one that introduced a new civil procedure. As everyone will recall, this was Law 1/2000 of January 7, on Civil Procedure. And how many parallels can be drawn between these two reforms!
Both were enacted at the start of the legislative year as Bill No. 1, while the holiday season was still underway; both were presented as the ultimate solution to judicial reform; both were given a one-year grace period to become fully effective; and both were the subject, in the days and weeks leading up to their implementation, of urgent calls for a moratorium from a wide variety of groups and social actors.
But there is one fact—regarding the subsequent evolution of the Civil Procedure Act, whose twenty-fifth anniversary we are celebrating today—that we should not lose sight of when assessing the merits of this latest reform, with which we are beginning the new year. Although Law 1/2000 was once described as the definitive modernization of our country’s judicial system, its text has undergone no fewer than 35 legislative amendments since its enactment. The penultimate one, in fact, was introduced by Organic Law 1/2025.
The fact is that all procedural reforms claim to be the perfect “cure” for the endemic “ills” afflicting judicial proceedings—until they are replaced by a subsequent law that is based on that same “active ingredient.”
In any case, let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope that the combined efforts of judges, court clerks, attorneys, and legal representatives will help overcome uncertainties and resistance for the benefit of those who find themselves needing to go to court to exercise their right to a fair trial.
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 embody reputation, trust, and commercial value. When disputes arise over the use of a brand, the outcome of litigation can directly impact a company’s viability and reputation.
In this article, we review what trademark disputes are, why they occur, some examples of real-life cases, and what steps can be taken to prevent them.
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 proceedings may be brought before national, European, or international courts, depending on the scope of the dispute.
Generally, trademark disputes center on issues such as:
These lawsuits are significant for two reasons: first, they protect the trademark owner, and second, they help ensure a fair and transparent market for consumers.
Trademark disputes have various causes, although they tend to center on the following:
This is one of the most common reasons. When two trademarks share graphic, phonetic, or conceptual similarities, it can lead to consumer confusion.
Well-known trademarks enjoy enhanced protection. Unauthorized use by third parties, even in different industries, may lead to litigation.
There are cases in which a person or company registers a trademark with the intention of blocking or taking advantage of another party's reputation, leading to legal disputes.
In a globalized world, many companies expand into new markets and encounter prior registrations or conflicting uses in other jurisdictions.
An analysis of case law provides insights into how courts interpret trademark rights. Below, we will summarize some representative cases:
One example of a trademark dispute is the case involving the name of María Callas, the famous Greek soprano. The artist’s heirs attempted to block the registration of a figurative trademark with the EUIPO that included her name, for goods in Class 16 (stationery).
The opposition was based on three main arguments:
However, the EUIPO Opposition Division rejected the claim for several compelling reasons:
This case is a clear example of how the fame of a person or a distinctive sign is not, on its own, sufficient to block registrations for all classes of goods or services. To succeed in an opposition proceeding, it is essential to demonstrate a genuine and specific connection between the trademark and the goods or services in question, as well as an actual likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage.
Another example in the area of trademark litigation is the dispute between Cuétara and Gullón over the use of similar packaging in the marketing of cookies.
In this case, Cuétara sued Gullón for unfair competition, arguing that the marketing of the “Choco Cereales” cookies improperly imitated both the figurative trademark “Choco Flakes” and the packaging Cuétara used to distinguish its products. These trademarks were duly registered with the OEPM and the EUIPO.
The case 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:
Consequently, the ruling determined that:
This case is a good example of how the courts protect not only the trademark itself, but also the combination of graphic and commercial elements that could mislead consumers, especially in mass-market sectors such as the food industry.
Although legal action is an essential tool for defending trademark rights, it is best to minimize risks before a dispute arises. Some key recommendations are:
Trademark litigation highlights the strategic value of distinctive marks and the need to proactively protect them. Preventing disputes through an effective trademark strategy and, if necessary, defending one’s rights in court are essential for any company that wants to safeguard its competitiveness.
María Cadarso, Senior Associate in the Legal (Litigation) Department at Elzaburu
Over the past decade, CrossFit has evolved from a trend in the field of functional training into a global discipline with millions of followers and more than 12,000 affiliated gyms worldwide. This expansion has been accompanied by a parallel phenomenon: an increase in piracy and counterfeiting in the sport, particularly the misuse of registered trademarks such as“CrossFit.” This situation affects both rights holders and consumers, who may be misled into receiving a service that does not meet the quality standards associated with the brand.
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 exercises such as burpees, snatches, or AMRAPs) can be freely practiced by anyone or any gym, the use of the name “CrossFit” is legally protected. In other words, a facility can offer similar workouts without legal issues, but it cannot use the CrossFit trademark without the appropriate license.
The unauthorized use of the name “CrossFit” by unaffiliated gyms constitutes a clear form of sports piracy. These facilities take advantage of the brand’s reputation and prestige to attract customers, without meeting the certification and training requirements or paying the licensing fees required by the brand. This practice not only infringes on intellectual property rights but also constitutes unfair competition against facilities that do operate within the established legal framework, investing in training and quality standards.
CrossFit Inc. has taken an active, global stance in defending its brand. The company has implemented a monitoring network that combines technology with the collaboration of its affiliate community. Through a reporting form available on its official website, anyone can report misuse of the brand. This network makes it possible to detect cases of CrossFit piracy at various levels, from large chains to small neighborhood gyms.
The procedure begins with a friendly notice requesting that the infringer cease the unauthorized use of the trademark on items such as social media, whiteboards, signage, or T-shirts. If a satisfactory response is not received, the case is referred to the legal team in the relevant country. In Spain, this role is carried out by the law firm Elzaburu, which has represented CrossFit Inc. since 2015.
Over the past 10 years, 15 legal proceedings have been filed in Spain, 6 of which have resulted in convictions. Currently, there are eight active lawsuits pending in various national courts, although a significant portion of these disputes are resolved before they go to trial.
The amount of the claims has reached as high as 30,000 euros, a figure that may seem modest but reflects the fact that, in most cases, these claims are settled before the litigation becomes complicated.
The phenomenon of counterfeiting in sports is not new, but in rapidly growing disciplines such as CrossFit, it takes on a unique dimension. The professional appearance of many illegal facilities, the use of similar terminology, and the proliferation of social media as promotional channels make it difficult to distinguish between official and unauthorized operations. Added to this is the creation of disguised names such as “XtremFit,” “CrossBattle,” or “GarageWarriors.”
This practice is a clear example of unfair competition, as it creates confusion among consumers and undermines the efforts of those who comply with the regulations. Furthermore, piracy in CrossFit erodes the brand’s value, which has been built up over years of investing in its reputation and offering a unique athletic experience.
CrossFit’s legal strategy seeks not only to preserve the rights arising from its 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 also a structural risk that affects the identity and sustainability of the ecosystem built around this discipline.
The protection of industrial property rights in the sports sector is crucial to preserving market integrity and protecting both rights holders and consumers. At Elzaburu, we continue to work 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 at Elzaburu.
No, this isn’t a science fiction movie. On April 3, Organic Law 1/2025 of January 7 on the efficiency of the public justice system came into effect with regard to the new Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (MASC). This means that, from now on, it will no longer be possible to file a civil lawsuit without first attempting to resolve the dispute through one of the alternative methods proposed by the law.
Over the past three months, the term “admissibility requirement”—so characteristic of procedural law—has become widely known. By granting the MASC this status, the legislature has elevated “the temple of Concord” above “the temple of Justice.”
We said that this isn’t a movie, but the reality is that it could very well be a “remake.” The civil justice system already had this mechanism in place—through the judicial settlement procedure—until the 1984 reform, which transformed it into an optional process. And, by the way, to widespread applause.
There are quite a few new uncertainties emerging now regarding industrial and intellectual property litigation, which our litigation attorneys will be discussing over the coming weeks:
Let's hope, in any case, that *The Day of the MASC*—even though it isn't the title of a movie and despite its air of being a remake—doesn't end up becoming a piece of experimental cinema that leaves moviegoers bewildered.
Enrique Armijo(Partner in theLegalDepartment at Elzaburu) andCarlos Morán(Partner in theLegal Department at Elzaburu).
The annual Mobile World Congress, the world's largest mobile phone and technology trade show, is fast approaching. As usual, the event will take place at the Fira de Barcelona exhibition center over four days, beginning this year on Monday, March 3, and concluding on Thursday, March 6.
Given that more than 2,000 leading companies in the sector participate in this conference, showcasing new telecommunications products, mobile applications, and software innovations to the world, the Mobile World Congress becomes, year after year, a setting prone to potential conflicts between companies, primarily due to possible violations of industrial and intellectual property rights.
There are three main risks faced by exhibitors:
In past editions of the MWC, the courts in Barcelona and Alicante have processed a large number of requests for ex parte injunctions within 48 hours and without prior notice to exhibitors. In some cases, the defendant companies were able to have the injunctions lifted by posting a substitute bond. In other cases, the exhibitors’ failure to respond or to post such a bond resulted in the injunctions remaining in effect for the duration of the conference.
In addition to preliminary injunctions, the courts have also processed, during some editions of the MWC, a number of requests for fact-finding proceedings aimed at obtaining information—at the event itself—about exhibiting companies, their products, and technical data.
The risk posed by precautionary measures and fact-finding proceedings is even greater when we consider that, in previous editions, notification of the court ruling and its enforcement—through a demand to remove the displayed products—took place once the Congress had begun, through the presence—albeit discreet—of judges and law enforcement officials at the exhibitors’ booths.
Therefore, it is essential that exhibitors develop a strategy in advance to enforce their patent, trademark, design, or copyright rights and avoid incidents.
In light of these disputes, for years now, the Commercial Court of Barcelona—as well as the EU Trademark Court in Alicante—have implemented an On-Call and Rapid Response Protocol. This protocol serves the dual purpose of avoiding, to the extent possible, the adoption of preliminary injunctions without a hearing for the defendant and, at the same time, implementing effective measures to protect those rights.
Under this Protocol, the courts undertake to rule on the admissibility of requests for preliminary orders (intended to prevent the adoption of interim measures without a hearing of the defendant) on the same day they are filed (within 24 hours). In addition, they undertake to rule on requests for precautionary measures within 2 days (48 hours), scheduling a hearing within 10 days if a preventive brief has been filed.
Therefore, now is the time for companies participating in the Mobile World Congress to plan ahead and take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of their rights, thereby avoiding potential setbacks during the event.
At ELZABURU, we have played a significant role, participating in approximately 25% of the cases resolved by the courts under the Mobile World Congress Protocol over the past 7 years. This year, the firm will once again provide support to its clients by implementing measures both to effectively safeguard their industrial and intellectual property rights and to mitigate any risk of unexpected actions by third parties that could jeopardize their normal participation in the upcoming congress.
María Cadarso, Associate, Legal Department, Elzaburu