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.
R&D has established itself as one of the main drivers of business competitiveness, sustainable growth, and technological leadership. In an increasingly demanding European context, investment in research and development not only drives innovation but also strengthens companies’ visibility and relative standing in international rankings.
In this context, theSpain R&D Ranking 2025, compiled by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC), provides a clear overview of the role played by Spain’s most R&D-intensive companies.
Spain has managed to place 26 companies in the ranking of the 800 European companies that invest the most in R&D, representing 3.3% of the total. This presence reflects the strength of the Spanish business sector in terms of innovation, with a particularly significant presence in strategic sectors such as banking, energy, technology, healthcare, and manufacturing.
In this context, six Spanish companies stand out for their ranking among the top 100 European companies in terms of R&D investment:
These companies not only lead the national scene but also strengthen the international standing of Spanish R&D. In particular, the top five are also among the 2,000 companies worldwide that invest the most in R&D, accounting for 0.25% of the global total.
A notable milestone in the most recent edition of the ranking is the entry of Inditex, which joins the list as the seventh-highest-ranked Spanish company, reaching 103rd place. This entry is particularly significant, as the company has traditionally been associated with business models that emphasize design, logistics, and digitalization rather than R&D in the classical sense. Its inclusion demonstrates a broadening of the concept of corporate R&D, which is increasingly linked to technological processes, data analytics, and digital transformation.
Furthermore, of the 21 Spanish companies that have made the list again, 17 have improved their ranking compared to the previous year, which demonstrates a positive and sustained trend in investment in research and development by the Spanish business community.
There is a contrast between the number of companies that invest in R&D in Spain and those that ultimately appear in the ranking. According to data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE), more than 12,200 Spanish companies invested in research and development in 2024. However, only a very small fraction of them appear on the list compiled by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center.
As noted by the Cotec Foundation for Innovation, this gap is not due to a lack of innovation, but rather primarily to methodological and reporting issues. Many organizations do not report their R&D investments in accordance with the methodological criteria required by the JRC, which means that a significant portion of the innovation efforts carried out in Spain is not captured by the indicators used in the ranking, even though these are real and, in many cases, substantial investments.
Added to this circumstance is the structural issue related to the very definition of innovative activities. R&D&I encompasses not only Research and Development (R&D) but also Technological Innovation (TI), whose importance in the Spanish context has increased significantly in recent years. The 2023 IMV Application Report, prepared by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities, details the evolution of both concepts.
In 2011, a total of 2 , 702 Binding Reasoned Reports were issued, of which 57.8% corresponded to projects classified as Research and Development, while 37.4% were associated with projects classified as Technological Innovation. In 2023, this distribution was reversed, with R&D reports accounting for 37.5% of the total, compared to 62.1% for TI projects.
This trend is not due to a relative decline in research and development projects in favor of technological innovation, but rather to the rapid and uninterrupted growth of technological innovation in Spain over more than a decade, compared with R&D advancing at a more moderate pace. In practice, many companies are focusing a growing portion of their innovation efforts on technological improvement, digitization, process optimization, and incremental development—activities that are not always adequately reflected in international R&D rankings.
However, it is worth noting that, compared to the number of Binding Reasoned Reports issued in 2011, 8,127 reports were issued in 2023 , which clearly reflects the growing commitment of Spanish companies to R&D&I in its various forms.
Investment in R&D requires more than just a one-time financial commitment. For companies engaged in ongoing innovation, the challenge lies in managing that investment consistently, ensuring that the resources allocated and the knowledge generated translate into tangible and measurable value for the business.
Effective management of research and development involves clearly identifying innovative activities, consistently monitoring projects, and having reliable financial information that allows for the evaluation of both the impact of the investment and its return. This approach not only facilitates decision-making and improves the efficiency of resources allocated to R&D, but also strengthens the company’s competitive position in increasingly demanding and globalized markets.
From this perspective, R&D becomes a strategic asset that requires a comprehensive vision and specialized management, aimed at maximizing the return on investment and providing continuity and stability to the company’s commitment to innovation, regardless of its size or industry. The systematization of processes, rigorous documentation, and alignment with corporate objectives are key elements in ensuring that innovation ceases to be an isolated effort and becomes a driver of sustainable growth.
Data from the European ranking confirm that Spain is home to leading R&D companies and a business community that is deeply committed to research and development. However, significant challenges remain in terms of visibility, reporting, and international recognition. Beyond any ranking, the true competitive advantage lies in managing R&D in a strategic and coherent manner, aligned with business objectives, thereby making innovation a structural pillar of the company
At Elzaburu, we support and advise companies on how to maximize the benefits associated with their R&D&I projects, helping them extract the full value from their innovative activities and strengthen their long-term commitment to research and development. If you would like to explore how to optimize the return on your R&D investment through a specialized and rigorous approach, our team is here to advise you.
José Miguel Sanabria, Consultant in the Legal and Innovation Financing Division 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.
The illicit trade in counterfeit goods has evolved into a global, technologically advanced network capable of adapting rapidly to changes in the market and consumer behavior. The report by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) confirms this trend with data that highlights a growing threat to innovation, consumer safety, and economic activity as a whole.
According to the latest analysis by the EUIPO, more than 112 million counterfeit items were seized in 2024, with an estimated value exceeding 3,800 million euros—the highest figure to date. Although the total number of seized products fell by 26%, the economic value of the goods rose by 11%, indicating a shift toward more complex and higher-value counterfeits.
This shift in pattern can be explained by criminal networks’ growing focus on mid- to high-priced products that consumers trust (such as software, cosmetics, watches, and electronic devices). They are prioritizing the most profitable segments and moving away from the traditional mass-market approach.
One of the most striking findings in the report is that recorded CDs and DVDs (including software, video games, and applications) lead the list as the category most frequently seized in the domestic market, accounting for 40% of all seizures. This uptick is not due to a resurgence in physical media driven by nostalgia, but rather to demand generated by retro gaming and by users who prefer offline installations for professional software.
The associated risk is significant: many of these copies contain malware, unauthorized remote access, or critical vulnerabilities, which can compromise the cybersecurity of users and businesses. In an environment where cybercrime is growing exponentially, installing pirated software leaves the door open to targeted attacks or data theft.
After counterfeit software, the most common categories are toys (19%), clothing and accessories (12%), cigarettes and e-cigarettes (4%), and perfumes and cosmetics (3%)—categories that pose a clear risk to consumer health.
Counterfeit perfumes, cosmetics, and tobacco products bypass all health inspections and may contain harmful substances, while defective toys or chargers can cause physical harm.
As a result, these products not only infringe on intellectual property rights but also pose a direct threat to consumers, who are often unaware of the illegal origin of the items they purchase.
Most of the counterfeit goods seized in the EU come from China (44%), followed by Turkey (22%). For the first time, the United Arab Emirates (6%) has emerged as a key player in the illicit trade flow, establishing itself as an emerging logistics hub.
As for shipping methods, maritime transport remains the dominant mode, but the main operational challenge lies in postal and express courier shipments, driven by the boom in e-commerce and the circulation of millions of small packages that are difficult to track individually.
Spain continues to play a central role in the seizure of illicit goods, with nearly three million additional items seized compared to 2023, valued at 576 million euros. Its geographic location and the activity at its ports and logistics centers account for both the scale of the flow and the effectiveness of national enforcement efforts.
The report highlights improvements in administrative and law enforcement cooperation, as well as the increasingly advanced use of technological tools, including artificial intelligence for predictive analytics.
In this regard, the Enforcement Portal (IPEP) handled more than 6,500 alerts in 2024 and facilitated joint actions with Europol through operations such as Fake Star II, Shield, and Opson. As a result, more than 81% of the proceedings resulted in the destruction of the seized products.
Thus, the report highlights the need for genuine—not merely formal—cooperation, which involves sharing technical information (among companies, customs authorities, and law enforcement agencies), strengthening operational training, and expediting seizure procedures to keep pace with highly technologically advanced criminal networks.
The fight against counterfeiting cannot be limited to customs agencies and courts. Raising public awareness is essential to reducing demand. Educating consumers about the economic and ethical impacts, as well as the personal risks to health and safety, is a crucial line of defense, especially among young people and in educational settings.
At Elzaburu, we closely monitor developments in the illicit market and their implications for industrial property rights. Our team continuously analyzes regulatory, technological, and operational changes to provide our clients with thorough, up-to-date advice tailored to the real challenges of anti-piracy and the protection of intangible assets.
Alberto Gallo, an associate attorney at Elzaburu specializing in anti-piracy.
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
Influencer marketing has evolved from a trend into a well-established tool within brands’ digital strategies. In 2023, online investment in this area grew by 23.9%, prompting a thorough review of the applicable regulatory framework. In this context, the new Code of Conduct for Advertising Through Influencers represents a significant update from previous versions, incorporating both obligations and recommendations for companies, agencies, and influencers.
The new Code expands its scope to include new stakeholders, such as “users of particular significance” as defined in the General Law on Audiovisual Communication, and incorporates requirements stemming from the Digital Services Regulation. In addition, it incorporates the interpretive doctrine established by the Advertising Board over the past five years, which provides greater clarity and legal certainty to the sector.
Its main objective is to ensure that advertising by influencers is identifiable, transparent, and responsible, thereby preventing disguised advertising. Unlike the previous version, it eliminates the requirement for editorial control as a condition for classifying content as advertising. Now, only two elements need to be present: the content must have a clear advertising purpose, and it must be disseminated as part of a collaboration involving some form of compensation.
Companies that partner with influencers should pay special attention to two key aspects:
Although the legal framework is uniform, its practical application varies by social media platform. The Code recommends using the specific features offered by platforms to indicate that content is advertising. For example:
However, these functions are not uniform, which leads to differences in how the requirements are met. It is essential that the disclosure be clear, immediately apparent, and appear at the beginning of the message, ensuring that it is not hidden among hashtags or requires additional action on the user’s part to be seen.
Following the entry into force of the new Code, it is essential that agreements with influencers include clear provisions to ensure compliance with legal and self-regulatory obligations:
These clauses not only reduce legal risks, but also protect the brand's reputation and enhance transparency for consumers.
The Code clearly and fairly defines the division of liability between the company and the influencer. All parties may be held liable in the event of a breach, although the company may be exempt from liability if it demonstrates that the violation was a one-time, clear-cut action by the influencer that contravened specific instructions.
When advertising content is disseminated solely at the influencer’s initiative, without any involvement or intervention by the company, responsibility lies solely with the influencer or their agents.
This new framework provides greater legal certainty for companies by precisely defining the circumstances under which they may be held liable. However, it requires rigorous oversight of partnerships to mitigate risks.
Cristina Espín, Senior Associate in the Legal Department (Business and Contracts) at Elzaburu.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just a technological experiment; it has become part of the day-to-day work of legal professionals. From searching for case law to analyzing contracts, AI-based tools have been integrated into law firms’ work, changing the way information is organized and legal advice is provided. But their adoption forces us to rethink what it means today to practice law with rigor, transparency, and efficiency.
The Madrid Bar Association has developed an ICAM Guide to Best Practices for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession, which we summarize in this article and which can help us use artificial intelligence responsibly in the legal field.
The first mistake is to delegate tasks to AI without understanding how it works. Before implementing any tool, it is necessary to understand what it does, what its limitations are, and in which scenarios this technology truly adds value. Tech literacy has become an essential skill for the modern lawyer: knowing what biases a model may carry, how its results are trained, and what risks its use entails.
Not everything can or should be automated. AI has already proven useful in tasks such as document classification and summarizing legal texts. However, other activities—such as interpreting regulations or defining a litigation strategy—require human judgment and should not be outsourced to an algorithm. The golden rule: use technology to gain agility, without compromising the quality of legal advice or client confidentiality.
Today's lawyers need to be proficient in both legal and technical language. This involves training teams, establishing usage protocols, and fostering a culture in which AI is viewed as a support tool, not a replacement. It is about combining legal precision with technical expertise to build client trust.
Integrating AI into a law firm requires defining responsibilities and controls. Which tools are authorized? Who audits their results? How is the traceability of information ensured? Answering these questions is not a mere bureaucratic formality, but a measure to protect the firm’s professional standing and reputation. A mistake in this area not only creates legal risks but can also seriously undermine the firm’s credibility.
The European Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) marks a turning point. It establishes risk categories, requires transparency, and mandates that decisions made by AI systems be documented. For law firms, this means auditing tools, assessing risks, and recognizing that the responsible management of technology is part of professional diligence.
The impact of AI is not limited to internal practices; it also shapes what clients demand. Companies across all sectors use it in hiring, recruitment, and data management processes. Lawyers must translate technological risks into legal risks and ensure that solutions are explainable and auditable. This role goes beyond mere compliance: it is about preserving trust and reputation.
Speed must not come at the expense of rigor. Every decision regarding the use of AI must be documented and communicated honestly. Professional ethics, in this context, are demonstrated both in the arguments presented and in the way technological tools are used.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a “possible future,” but a reality in law firms. Its responsible use requires knowledge, prudence, and strategic vision. Rather than a threat, it is an opportunity: the opportunity to modernize the practice of law without compromising the values that have always defined the profession.
Mabel Klimt, managing partner.