Can a product's appearance influence a purchasing decision? Yes. Industrial design not only makes a product more appealing—it can also convey quality, innovation, trust, and differentiation from other similar products.

A recent report from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) confirms this idea with relevant data. Seventy-two percent of European consumers consider product design to be important when deciding what to buy, and nearly three out of four are willing to pay more for a better-designed product. In Spain, that figure also stands at 73 percent.

But the report allows us to take it a step further. If industrial design influences consumer choice, it also becomes an asset that is particularly vulnerable to copying, imitation, and counterfeiting. Therefore, protecting a product’s appearance is not just an aesthetic issue. It is a strategic decision within a company’s industrial property management.

What Does Industrial Design Protect?

Industrial design protects the configuration or external appearance of a product. That is, its lines, contours, shape, colors, textures, materials, ornamentation, or a combination of these elements.

It does not protect an abstract idea or a technical solution in and of itself. Other forms of protection, such as patents or utility models, exist for that purpose. An industrial design protects the specific way in which a product is visually presented on the market.

This can be applied to a wide variety of products: furniture, containers, handbags, jewelry, clothing, electronic devices, industrial parts, lighting, toys, packaging, and everyday consumer goods.

In markets where many products offer similar features, appearance can be a deciding factor. Recognizable packaging, a distinctive shape, or a consistent visual style can help consumers identify, remember, and prefer one product over others.

This point is particularly relevant in the digital environment. Purchasing decisions are increasingly made on marketplaces, social media, and e-commerce platforms, where the product’s image carries a great deal of weight before the consumer can physically touch, try, or compare it.

Industrial Design and Counterfeits: A Direct Relationship

Counterfeiting does not always involve copying a brand or reproducing a logo. In many cases, it is the product's appearance that is imitated.

A counterfeit product may replicate the shape of a handbag, the design of a piece of jewelry, the style of a sneaker, the silhouette of a lamp, or the overall appearance of a package. Sometimes it will also feature another brand’s logo. Other times, it will attempt to visually resemble the original product without exactly copying its distinctive mark.

That is where the protection of industrial designs takes on obvious practical value.

A trademark protects the sign that identifies the source of a business: a name, a logo, a graphic combination, or, in certain cases, a distinctive shape. Industrial design, on the other hand, protects the external appearance of a product. These two forms of protection can be complementary, and in industries prone to copying, it is advisable to analyze them in a coordinated manner.

For example, in fashion, jewelry, watches, furniture, accessories, electronics, or packaging, consumers often recognize a product by its appearance rather than by other factors. If that appearance is copied, the damage can go beyond a lost sale. It can affect the company’s reputation, create confusion in the market, and undermine the investment made in creativity, development, and communication.

Why the Best-Designed Products Are the Most Vulnerable

In principle, the more recognizable an industrial design is, the more value it can generate. But it may also be more attractive to those seeking to capitalize on that value without bearing the costs of design, manufacturing, quality, or branding.

The EUIPO report notes that sectors where design plays a key role are particularly vulnerable to counterfeiting. In the European Union, estimated annual losses amount to 12 billion euros in the textile and apparel sector and 2.7 billion euros in the handbag and jewelry sectors. In Spain alone, counterfeiting causes losses of more than 1.2 billion euros in these sectors.

E-commerce has exacerbated this risk. A counterfeit industrial design can appear on a marketplace, circulate on social media, be promoted through targeted ads, or reach consumers through international channels in a very short time.

This poses an additional challenge for companies. By the time the infringement is detected, the counterfeit product may already have been distributed across various platforms or territories. In such a scenario, having a registered design can facilitate enforcement, as it makes it easier to establish more clearly which appearance was protected, starting when, and within which territorial scope.

It's not just a problem for large companies

Counterfeiting is often associated with large companies, but small and medium-sized enterprises are also particularly vulnerable to the copying of industrial designs.

Many small and medium-sized enterprises base their differentiation on a few products or a unique appearance that is an essential part of their competitive advantage. When a third party copies those designs and sells them at a lower price, the consequences can be significant, since SMEs typically have fewer resources to monitor and respond to infringements.

The EUIPO report highlights precisely this gap. Although companies that register industrial property rights tend to show better economic indicators, only about 1% of EU SMEs hold registered design rights.

The figure shows clear room for improvement. Many companies invest in creating attractive products, but they do not always include industrial design protection in their planning. And, in many cases, the problem arises when the product has already become successful and copies begin to appear.

How to Integrate Industrial Design into a Company's Strategy

Protecting an industrial design should start with a simple question: What visual elements make this product recognizable or unique?

From there, it is important to identify which products, packaging, collections, components, or decorative elements have actual or potential commercial value. Not all designs need to be registered, but those that involve significant investment, offer differentiation, or have market potential deserve specific evaluation.

It is also advisable to keep documentation of the creative process: sketches, drafts, renderings, briefs, design decisions, creation dates, and contracts with external designers. This documentation can be useful in the event of a dispute, especially if you need to defend the validity of the design or prove ownership.

Finally, protection must go hand in hand with monitoring. Detecting counterfeit products, imitations, or copies of industrial designs on marketplaces, at trade shows, on social media, or through distribution channels allows us to respond sooner and minimize the impact.

Trademarks, Industrial Design, and Unfair Competition: Complementary Approaches

In some disputes, the copying of a product can be analyzed from different legal perspectives.

If a sign identical or similar to a registered trademark is used, a trademark infringement may occur. If the appearance protected by a registered design is reproduced, an industrial design infringement may arise. And, in certain cases, it may also be assessed whether unfair competition exists, especially when the imitation causes confusion, takes unfair advantage of another’s reputation, or distorts market behavior.

For this reason, protection against counterfeits and counterfeit products rarely relies on a single approach. The most effective strategy is usually to develop a combined approach.

Protecting industrial design means protecting the investment in differentiation

The EUIPO report confirms that industrial design influences consumer choice and contributes to the competitiveness of European companies. But that very value also makes it a target for counterfeiting and copying.

For companies, registering an industrial design should not be viewed as a defensive measure reserved for when a dispute arises. It is a strategic decision that protects the investment made in creativity, development, market positioning, and reputation.

Manolo Mínguez, Senior Associate – Director of the Elzaburu Office in Valencia

Applications for industrial designs increased in Spain during 2025, becoming the type of industrial property with the highest annual growth rate. This is according to the report *The OEPM in Figures 2025*, published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, which puts the increase in industrial designs at 14.8%, surpassing the growth recorded for patents (12%), utility models (8%), and trademarks (11.5%).

This growth confirms the growing importance of protecting the external appearance of products within companies’ intellectual property strategies. In saturated markets, where many products compete on the basis of similar functionalities, design can become a decisive factor in differentiation.

The highest number of industrial design applications since 2019

The 14.8% growth marks the highest figure for industrial designs in recent years. In 2025, 16,032 design applications were filed—a figure not seen since 2019 and one that exceeds the annual average for the past decade.

This trend is particularly significant because it follows several years of erratic performance. After the declines recorded in the years following 2019, the 2025 data points to a clear recovery in the protection of design as a business asset.

Trends in National Industrial Design Applications Over the Past 10 Years

Catalonia, Madrid, the Valencian Community, and Andalusia lead the way in industrial design

The SPTO report shows a clear regional concentration of industrial design applications. In 2025, Catalonia was the autonomous community with the highest number of applications, with 3,920 designs, representing 24.5% of the total. It was followed by the Community of Madrid, with 17.2%; the Valencian Community, with 15.8%; and Andalusia, with 10.1%.

These four regions account for 67.6% of all industrial design applications filed in Spain. This distribution reflects the importance of regions with a strong presence of sectors linked to design, fashion, footwear, retail, consumer products, interior design, furniture, and the creative industries.

Distribution of National Industrial Design Applications by Autonomous Community

Fashion, ornamentation, and decorative objects account for a large portion of industrial design applications

The report also allows for an analysis of which types of products account for the highest number of industrial design applications. In 2025, the three classes with the highest number of designs were clothing and haberdashery; graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation, and the layout of interior and exterior spaces; and decorative objects.

In the case of clothing and haberdashery, this includes designs related to garments, footwear, accessories, textile accessories, or decorative elements applied to fashion products. This class once again tops the rankings, with 4,932 applications and a 13.1% increase compared to 2024, reflecting the importance of protecting a product’s aesthetics in industries where shape, cut, silhouette, or visual details can be decisive.

Also noteworthy is the category of graphic symbols, logos, surface patterns, ornamentation, and the layout of interior and exterior spaces, which grew by 23.4%. This class includes designs applied to prints, decorative motifs, graphic patterns, and visual elements for interiors, commercial spaces, or packaging. Its growth points to a greater focus on protecting visual elements that help build identity, differentiate products, and strengthen the brand experience.

Beyond the categories with the highest volume, the report also shows very significant increases in classes that traditionally account for a smaller share of applications. This is the case for travel goods, cases, parasols, and personal items not included in other classes, which grew by 80.5%; stationery, office supplies, and materials for artists or educators, which increased by 81%; and buildings and building components, which recorded a 76.3% increase. Although these categories start from lower figures than fashion or ornamentation, this growth points to a greater use of industrial design in sectors where a product’s appearance, presentation, or the visual configuration of certain elements is beginning to take on greater competitive significance.

Industrial design categories with the highest number of applications in 2025

The report’s data show that industrial design is gaining prominence as a protection tool within industrial property. And not only in sectors where product aesthetics have traditionally played an obvious role, such as fashion, footwear, accessories, and home decor. It is also beginning to have a greater presence in categories related to everyday products, packaging, professional-use items, construction elements, and solutions applied to the consumer experience.

This growth reflects an increasingly clear reality: a product’s appearance can be a key business asset. In many markets, a product’s shape, finish, presentation, or visual design directly influence consumer perception and can be decisive in setting it apart from competing products.

All of the charts included in this article are taken from the report *The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office in Figures 2025*, published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office.

Paloma Querol, associate at Elzaburu

Effective July 1, 2026, Phase II of the EU’s legislative reform on designs will complete a process that began on May 1, 2025, and many of its practical implications for the EUIPO will take effect.

Its goal is to adapt the European Union’s design protection system to a reality in which a product’s appearance can no longer always be captured by a still image. Today, there are digital interfaces, animations, complex three-dimensional products, moving graphic elements, and designs that are used in both physical and digital environments at the same time.

For this reason, one of the major changes concerns the way designs are represented. But that is not the only one. Changes are also being introduced to design invalidation proceedings, communications with the Office, and other procedures governing design applications or registered designs.

More views to represent a static design

Until now, the maximum number of views eligible for protection for a static design was seven. With Phase II, that limit increases to ten.

It may seem like a minor change, but in practice it can make a difference. Many products are difficult to understand from just a few angles: parts with different sides, products with details on the sides, designs with ornamental elements in various areas, or items whose appearance depends on how they are viewed from different angles.

Having more perspectives makes it easier to describe what needs to be protected and reduces uncertainty about the scope of the registry.

Dynamic 3D visualizations and animated designs

The most notable change is the acceptance of new types of representations. Effective July 1, 2026, the EUIPO will accept dynamic 3D representations and animated representations.

The planned formats are:

• Static views: JPEG, with a maximum of 2 MB per view.
• Dynamic 3D models: OBJ and STL, with a maximum of 20 MB per file.
• Animated files: MP4, with a maximum of 20 MB per file.

In practice, the registration may more accurately reflect designs whose appearance depends on a sequence, a transition, a movement, or a 3D visualization. Consider, for example, graphical user interfaces, a visual transition, an animated icon, a graphic sequence, or a product whose perception depends on its movement.

Even so, greater flexibility also requires more careful judgment. Before filing an application, you’ll need to decide which form of representation best reflects the value of the design: a series of static views, a three-dimensional file, or an animation. It is not simply a matter of using the most cutting-edge format, but rather the one best suited to clearly define the appearance you wish to protect. For example, in animated representations, the animation itself would form part of the subject matter of protection; therefore, in some cases, it might be preferable to choose static or 3D views to protect the design.

Visual Compromises and Image Correction

Phase II also specifies the use of disclaimers in representations. These elements make it possible to indicate which parts of an image are not part of the claimed design. In practice, they can be useful when one wishes to protect only a part of the product or when certain elements appear in the representation out of necessity but are not intended to be included within the scope of protection.

The rule also allows for the modification or alteration of renderings without losing the submission date, provided that the changes are minor. For example, a background may be corrected to achieve a neutral and acceptable rendering.

This provision can prevent an application from being rejected due to purely formal defects. However, it should not be confused with a second chance to change the design. The modification cannot affect the essential appearance of the protected object.

Streamlined Nullity Proceedings

Another significant section concerns applications for a declaration of invalidity of EU designs. The reform aims to make these procedures more efficient and orderly.

Among the measures envisaged, the suspension of proceedings may last for a maximum of two years. In addition, priority will be given to certain cases based on lack of novelty or singularity when the owner of the contested design has not filed a response.

Petitions for annulment must include a duly substantiated brief containing a precise statement of the facts, evidence, and arguments, accompanied by the primary supporting documentation. Particular emphasis is placed on the evidence and the manner in which it must be submitted.

In other words, challenging an industrial design will require greater organization from the outset. It will not be enough to simply claim that a design “already existed” or that it lacks distinctiveness. It will be necessary to provide adequate evidence, identify prior disclosures, and argue why they affect the validity of the registered design.

Proof of Use When Invalidity Is Based on an Earlier Trademark

The reform also includes a provision relevant to cases in which the invalidity of a design is based on an earlier trademark.

If that trademark has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may request proof of use of the earlier trademark during two five-year periods. These periods do not have to overlap and are calculated based on the filing date of the application for invalidation or the filing date or priority date of the contested design.

This change links the invalidity of designs to a principle already established in trademark law: whoever invokes a prior right must be able to prove its use when required by law.

Electronic Communications and New Procedural Tools

The reform also updates the practical relationship with the EUIPO. Communications and notifications will be sent electronically, which requires applicants, owners, and representatives to pay special attention to managing their accounts, notifications, and deadlines.

Another important development is the entry into force of the procedure for the continuation of EU design applications. This mechanism, already in place for EU trademarks, will allow applicants to request an extension for certain deadlines within two months of the original expiration date, upon payment of a fee of 400 euros.

Provision is also made for requesting the revocation of EUIPO decisions that contain an obvious error attributable to the Office. The deadline for filing such a request is one year from the date of the decision or from the date it is entered in the Register.

With regard to licenses, a practical change is being introduced: it will be possible to register a license limited to only one or more of the product designations of an EU design. This may facilitate more precise contractual arrangements, especially when the same design is used on different products, in different markets, or across different lines of business.

Ultimately, Phase II of the reform does more than just change the way applications are filed with the EUIPO. It requires a more precise approach to how each design is represented, documented, and managed. For companies—especially those that develop digital, three-dimensional, or dynamic products—the challenge will be to take advantage of these new tools so that the protection better reflects the true visual value of their creations.

Pedro Saturio, Associate Partner in the Patent Practice Group at Elzaburu

Every year on April 26, World Intellectual Property Day is celebrated—an initiative promoted by WIPO to highlight the role of innovation, creativity, and intangible assets in various economic sectors. In 2026, the celebration revolves around the theme “IP and Sports: On Your Marks, Get Set, Innovate!”, focusing on how intellectual property drives technological development, creativity, and branding strategies in the world of sports.

Professional sports is an ecosystem where patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyrights all come together. For this reason, we wanted to take a closer look at the case of Joma and its colorful soccer cleats—an innovative move that broke with traditional soccer aesthetics.

Soccer Dominated by the Color Black

For much of the 20th century, soccer cleats were very similar: black, simple, and functional. The priority was on the durability of the material and athletic performance.

In that context, the idea of adding color to soccer cleats seemed, to many, nothing short of an extravagance. However, Fructuoso López, the founder of Joma, decided to take a different approach: to break away from soccer’s monochromatic tradition and turn athletic footwear into a visually distinctive element.

The Origin of the Revolution: “Color in Football”

His vision gave rise to the “Color in Football” campaign in the mid-1990s. The idea was to launch soccer cleats that would be a radical departure from the traditional black.

The first ones were white boots, followed shortly afterward by models in more eye-catching colors, such as red. To promote them, the brand enlisted two rising stars in Spanish soccer: Alfonso Pérez and Fernando Morientes.

At a time when all the players wore black shoes, the visual impact was immediate, as the player stood out on every play, in every TV replay, and in every photograph from the game.

The boots didn't change in terms of their structure or materials (many were made of kangaroo leather), but the simple change in color completely altered the perception of the product.

Initial skepticism turned into later success

At first, they encountered countless obstacles. Many stores were reluctant to sell them, convinced that no one would want to play in colored cleats. In fact, to generate initial visibility, the brand even gave away a few pairs to be displayed in store windows.

There was also criticism from the sports world. Some journalists questioned the product's aesthetics, and the national team coach at the time even joked that defenders could spot the player wearing white cleats more easily.

However, the gamble paid off, and the cleats stood out on the field, becoming an instantly recognizable feature on television. Young fans wanted to copy them, and almost immediately, everyone knew those cleats were made by Joma.

The innovation wasn't just aesthetic—it was also an extremely effective marketing strategy.

The campaign's media impact

The impact of this innovation was particularly notable when considered in the context of the time. In the late 1990s, there were no social media platforms or viral digital campaigns, so outreach depended primarily on television, the sports press, and visibility at games.

Even so, the colorful boots became a media sensation. Appearances on magazine covers, comments during broadcasts, and growing demand among fans established the product as one of the brand’s biggest hits. This marked a turning point in athletic shoe design.

Innovation, Branding, and Differentiation in Sports

From the perspective of intellectual property and marketing, the Joma case illustrates several key aspects of how value is created in the sports industry:

1. 
   Product Innovation Although the product 's technical structure did not change radically, aesthetic innovation made it possible to redefine the market.
2. 
   Brand Strategy Color became a distinctive element that allowed consumers to quickly identify the product's corporate origin.
3. Media Exposure
   The fact that high-profile players used the product amplified its impact and boosted its recognition.
4. Copycat Effect in the Industry
   Following the initial success, other brands began introducing their own colorful boot styles, cementing a trend that is now completely commonplace.

Intellectual Property and Sports: Innovation On and Off the Field

The Joma case illustrates how innovation, creativity, and brand strategy can redefine an industry.

From patented materials used in sports equipment to industrial designs, trademarks, and image rights, intellectual and industrial property plays an essential role in the development of the sports industry.

In a global market where sports intersect with fashion, media, entertainment, and consumer goods, adequately protecting these intangible assets is key to driving innovation and strengthening companies' market positions.

The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) closed out 2025 with a figure of particular significance for the national innovation ecosystem: a total of 92,569 applications for industrial property rights, the highest number in the last ten years. This volume confirms the sustained growth trend observed in recent years and reflects an increasingly intensive use of legal protection tools for intangible assets by companies, entrepreneurs, and innovation centers.

National Trademarks: The Engine of Growth in Industrial Property

The main driver comes from the trademark sector. In 2025, 57,158 national trademark applications were filed, representing an 11.5% increase over the previous year. This growth is accompanied by a 4.3% rise in renewals of existing trademarks, an indicator that points to greater continuity in the management of trademark portfolios. Meanwhile, international trademarks maintained figures similar to those of 2024, with more than 2,000 applications, suggesting stable interest in protecting trademarks with global reach in the Spanish market.

Trends in Trademark and Domain Name Applications. Source: OEPM

Slight Increase in Patent Applications in Spain

In the field of technology, national patent applications totaled 1,361, exceeding the previous year’s figures by more than 11 percent. When PCT applications in the national phase are included, the total rises to 1,450. Although the absolute volume remains moderate compared to other European countries, this growth reflects a positive trend in Spain’s system for protecting technical innovation.

Stability in Utility Model Applications

Utility model applications also saw a slight increase of 1.7%, reaching 2,886 applications—2,923 including PCT applications in the national phase. This type of application remains an important tool for the protection of technical improvements, especially in industrial sectors where speed in obtaining rights is critical.

European Patent Validations in Spain: A Well-Established Market

A notable finding in the report concerns the validation of European patents in Spain, which totaled 23,295 applications. Although the number is down slightly from 2024, it remains above the levels recorded in 2022 and 2023, confirming the Spanish market’s position as a key destination for technology protection originating in Europe.

Trends in Patent and Utility Model Applications. Source: OEPM

Industrial design protection continues to show the strongest growth

Growth in industrial designs was particularly notable. In 2025, 16,032 design applications were filed, a 14.8% increase over the previous year, consolidating an upward trend that has continued in recent years. This increase reflects the growing importance of protecting the aesthetic appearance of products within business strategies that are increasingly focused on visual differentiation and the value of design.

Trends in Industrial Design Applications. Source: OEPM

Trends and Outlook in Industrial Property

Overall, the figures from the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) reflect a consolidation of growth in the protection of intangible assets, with varying trends depending on the type of intellectual property. The sharp increase in national trademarks and industrial designs points to a business landscape that is increasingly focused on differentiation, corporate identity, and the value of design as a competitive advantage.

At the same time, the increase in patent applications confirms a positive trend in the protection of technical innovation, although the volume still shows room for growth when compared to other European markets.

The report thus paints a picture in which industrial property is becoming an increasingly integral part of business strategy—not only as a legal tool for protection, but also as a key element in strengthening competitiveness and supporting the growth of Spain’s innovation ecosystem.

Applications for Industrial Property Rights in Spain, 2025. Source: OEPM

In 1865, significant advances were made in various fields of knowledge and technology. Some of these went unnoticed at the time, while others marked the beginning of business ventures that are now global leaders. Elzaburu was founded that same year, at a time when science, industry, and culture were beginning to organize themselves around the protection of innovation.

In this article, we highlight ten milestones that occurred in the same year our firm was founded and that have played a significant role in shaping what we now understand as industrial and intellectual property.

1. Mendel's Laws: Genetics Ahead of Its Time

In 1865, Gregor Mendel presented his studies on genetic inheritance. Although his conclusions were not recognized until decades later, his experiments laid the foundation for modern biotechnology, a field that today generates thousands of patents each year. They serve as a clear example of how scientific knowledge takes time to be valued and protected.

2. Joseph Lister and Surgical Antisepsis

That same year, British surgeon Joseph Lister began using carbolic acid (phenol) to sterilize instruments. His technique reduced postoperative infections and transformed medicine, paving the way for the protection of medical and pharmaceutical innovations. Antisepsis marked the beginning of a new era in surgery, and its application led to patentable developments in the hospital setting.

3. Maxwell's Equations: Applied Science

In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell formulated the equations that unified electricity, magnetism, and light. This theoretical breakthrough led to technologies such as radio, television, and telecommunications, all of which are protected by intellectual property rights. Fundamental physics, in this case, became the foundation for numerous industrial sectors that continue to evolve today.

4. Alfred Nobel and Nitroglycerin

In Sweden, Alfred Nobel founded his first nitroglycerin factory. Two years later, he would invent dynamite. His career illustrates how a scientific discovery can become a protected and commercially viable innovation. Furthermore, his legacy was cemented in the field of intellectual property with the creation of the Nobel Prizes, which recognize scientific and literary excellence.

5. The Elevator and Vertical Architecture

In 1865, the installation of elevators in office buildings began to become widespread, following the development of the safety brake by Elisha Otis. This technology transformed urban design and enabled the vertical growth of cities. Its technical evolution has been accompanied by numerous engineering developments that have been subject to industrial protection.

6. The Railroad as a Driver of Patents

That same year, the railroad network continued to expand in both Europe and the Americas. In Spain, connections between Madrid and cities such as Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, and Lisbon were being consolidated. This infrastructure, which transformed mobility and trade, relied on thousands of technical innovations protected by patents: from locomotives to signaling systems and track materials. The railroad is a clear example of how industrial property has been a driving force for progress in strategic sectors.

7. The Origins of Nestlé

In 1865, Henri Nestlé developed a formula for infant nutrition that led to the founding of the Nestlé company. Today, the company is a global leader in brand management, with a solid strategy for protecting its corporate identity. Its evolution demonstrates how a well-established brand can remain relevant for more than a century and a half.

8. Alice in Wonderland

That year, Lewis Carroll published *Alice in Wonderland*, a work that became a classic of children’s literature. Its success demonstrates the value of copyright in the dissemination and protection of creative works. Intellectual property rights have made it possible for this work to be adapted, translated, and marketed in multiple formats and territories.

9. The Transatlantic Telegraph Cable

In 1865, the first telegraph cable between Ireland and Newfoundland was successfully laid. This technical feat revolutionized communications and led to patents in telegraphy, marking the beginning of global connectivity. The transmission of real-time messages between continents was the seed from which the networks that underpin today’s digital economy grew.

10. The Bessemer Process and Modern Steel

The Bessemer process became established in 1865, enabling the mass and efficient production of steel. This innovation was protected by patents and became the foundation for major infrastructure projects and industrial developments. Steel facilitated the construction of bridges, trains, factories, and buildings, and remains a key material in contemporary engineering.

Elzaburu: a company born out of the same innovative environment

As these advances were taking place, Elzaburu was founded. Since then, we have worked alongside inventors, authors, and companies to protect their creations. Sharing our founding year with so many significant milestones reinforces our commitment to protecting the things that transform the world. Industrial and intellectual property not only preserves the value of ideas but also drives their development and application.

Elisa Prieto, Head of Knowledge Management at Elzaburu

On June 4, 2025, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) upheld the validity of two Community designs registered by Decathlon for its popular Easybreath snorkel mask, dismissing the invalidity actions filed by the German company Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH. The decision, set forth in cases T-1060/23 and  T-1061/23, provides up-to-date guidance on how functionality, distinctiveness, and overall impression are analyzed in the protection of industrial designs in the EU. For those who manage design portfolios or litigate in the field of industrial property, these rulings are essential.

These judgments by the General Court of the European Union mark a significant milestone in the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 on Community designs. In them, the Court addressed two key issues raised by Delta-Sport: whether the characteristics of the design were dictated exclusively by its technical function and whether the designs lacked individual character due to prior disclosures.

The TGUE concluded that certain design elements, such as the oval shape of the frame and the “X”-shaped strap attachment, were not determined solely by technical function but also reflected the designer’s aesthetic choices. Furthermore, the fact that there were viable alternatives for fulfilling the same technical function reinforced the idea that there was room for creativity.

With regard to distinctiveness, the Court held that, although there were similarities to earlier designs (including Decathlon’s own patents), the differences in elements such as the shape of the frame, the colors, the strap, and the tube cap were sufficient to create a distinct overall impression on the informed user.

1. Background: From Registration to Litigation Regarding Community Designs

• 2013 and 2014: Decathlon registered two designs (002340224-0001 and 002526699-0001) for the Easybreath mask with the EUIPO ; the mask featured an innovative one-piece visor and tube.
• Application for invalidation: Delta-Sport argued that the visible features of the product were dictated exclusively by its technical function (Art. 8.1 of the Design Regulation) and that there were sufficient prior disclosures to deprive the design of its individual character (Art. 6 of the Design Regulation).
• The EUIPO rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity, and Delta-Sport appealed to the General Court of the European Union.

002340224-0001

002526699-0001

Source images of the judgments: Cases T-1060/23 and T-1061/23

2. Key Legal Points in the Rulings on Decathlon's Designs

2.1. Technical Function vs. Aesthetic Choices

Some design elements, such as the oval frame and the way the strap attaches to the head, were not driven solely by technical requirements. These details also reflect aesthetic decisions made by the designer.

2.2. Uniqueness and Overall Impression

Even acknowledging similarities with prior patents and utility models, the TGUE concludes that the formal and visual differences are sufficient to create a distinct overall impression on the “informed user.” The Chamber emphasizes that the comparison is made as a whole, without breaking down individual components.

2.3. Available Alternatives and the Designer's Discretion

The Court also considered whether there were viable alternatives to the contested design that could perform the same technical function. This was key to demonstrating that the designer had a margin of creative freedom, thereby reinforcing the validity of the aesthetic choices made. The presence on the market of designs featuring different technical solutions made it possible to reject the claim that the contested elements were mandatory.

2.4. Evidentiary Value of the Documents Submitted

The TGUE carefully examined the evidence submitted by Delta-Sport, including images of prior products and technical documents. However, it determined that this evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a lack of novelty or distinctiveness, as it did not reproduce the same essential elements with the necessary precision and clarity. The comparative analysis focused on the perception of the informed user, not on a detailed technical analysis.

2.5. Practical Significance for Design Protection

These rulings confirm that aesthetics matter and that designers have the right to protect their creative expression, even in functional products. This is particularly relevant for companies with extensive design portfolios, such as Decathlon, which must anticipate potential conflicts and justify the design decisions they make.

3. Practical Implications for Companies and Designers

1. A Commitment to Visible Creativity
   • Even in highly functional products, small variations in shape, edges, or proportions can make all the difference. This case demonstrates that there is room for creativity and that it deserves protection.
2. Document the design process
   • Keeping sketches, renderings, and proof-of-concepts makes it easier to demonstrate that certain design choices are based on aesthetic criteria and not just technical requirements.
3. Keep an eye on pre-announcements
   • Although court rulings allow for similarities, a thorough clearance search reduces the risk of invalidation due to lack of distinctiveness.
4. Strengthens marketing and usability arguments
   • Demonstrating how the public perceives the design (opinions, awards, sales) helps establish a distinct overall impression before the EUIPO or the courts.
5. Prepare thorough expert reports
   • The opinions of experts in ergonomics, engineering, and design may be key to refuting the claim of exclusive technical function.

Judgments T-1060/23 and T-1061/23 confirm that, in sectors with common technical solutions, the designer’s creative scope and the informed user’s perspective remain decisive for protecting a design in the EU. For this reason, when developing defense strategies against invalidation actions for Community designs, it is important to always combine technical expertise, creativity, and market evidence.

At Elzaburu, we assist companies and designers throughout the entire process of managing, protecting, defending, and internationalizing their industrial designs (across all sectors and for all types of products).

Paloma Querol, Associate and Attorney at the ELZABURU office in Valencia.

The legal framework governing the protection of industrial designs in the European Union has been updated with the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823. This legislative reform marks a significant milestone in the harmonization and modernization of the system for registering and protecting industrial designs in Europe, as the previous directive dated back to 1998.

With this reform, the European Union seeks to facilitate access to industrial design protection, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while adapting to the technological and economic challenges of the digital age.

Key Consequences of the Legislative Reform on Designs

1. Change in terminology: The term “Community design” is replaced by “European Union design, ” which brings this concept into line with others such as the “European Union trademark.”
2. There is a limit of 50 designs per multiple request.
3. The class unity requirement for multiple design applications in the EU has been eliminated: it is now possible to include designs from different classes in a single application.
4. The publication fee is eliminated for design applications (filed on or after May 1, 2025) and requests for deferment of publication. Under the new rule, if you wish to abandon a design without publishing it, you must expressly renounce the design (abandonment by default will no longer be an option).

Other Implications of the New Law on Industrial Designs and Models

1. Expanding the Concept of Industrial Design

One of the major innovations in the industrial design law is the broadening of the definition of “product” eligible for protection. From now on, it will be possible to register not only designs applied to physical objects, but also those that:

• They can be viewed in graphical or digital environments.
• Depict the spatial arrangement of elements in indoor or outdoor settings.
• Include animations, movements, or transitions as part of the design's visual style.

2. Scope of Protection and Visible Elements

Protection is limited to the features visible in the representations of the registered design. However, those features need not be visible at any specific moment or in any specific situation of use. There is only one exception: in the case of components of complex products, protection applies only to the elements visible during normal use of the product.

3. Legislative Harmonization and Redress Clause

The clause regarding the repair of replacement parts becomes mandatory for all European Union member states. This harmonizes the legal situation regarding the use of protected designs to repair a complex product and thereby restore its original appearance, when the design is incorporated into an object that constitutes a component of a complex product on whose appearance the protected design of the component depends.

4. Preventing Unauthorized 3D Printing

Another critical issue is the emergence of technologies such as 3D printing. To prevent infringements, the new regulations clarify that: “the creation, downloading, copying, and making available of any medium or software that records the design for the purpose of reproducing a product that infringes on the protected design,” without authorization, is strictly prohibited.

5. Representation of Designs: New Accepted Formats

The regulations also call for an update to the formats allowed for submitting designs. Pending official confirmation, it is expected that videos and 3D images will be accepted as alternative means of representation to the traditional seven static views.

6. Changes in Rates and Associated Costs

Significant changes have been made to the fee schedule:

• Increase in renewal rates.
• Reduction of appeal rates and declarations of nullity.
• Elimination of fees such as publication and transfer fees.

Timeline for Implementing the Design Standard: Two Key Phases

This reform will be implemented in two phases:

1. First phase: May 1, 2025, when many of the changes described take effect.
2. Phase Two: July 1, 2026, when the rollout of the new regulatory framework will be completed.

For their part, EU member states will have until December 9, 2027, to incorporate the changes from the new directive into their respective national laws.

New Law on Industrial Designs and Models: A Step Forward in Design Protection

Although this is not a regulatory revolution, this update represents a substantial improvement in the legal protection of industrial designs in the European Union. The filing and registration system remains in place, and substantive examination of designs continues to be conducted only in cases where an application for a declaration of invalidity is filed against a registered design.

Similarly, we won't know until next year how the key aspects of the second phase will play out. Some of these changes could have a significant impact in practice, both for designers and for companies that use industrial designs as a competitive asset.

Ultimately, users of the design protection system in the European Union will have new legal tools at their disposal that will allow them to protect their creations more effectively and flexibly in an increasingly digital and globalized market.

At Elzaburu, we will continue to provide updates on how the practical implementation of these reforms is progressing, especially as we look ahead to the second phase, which will take effect in 2026.

Pedro Saturio, Associate Partner in the Patent Practice Group at Elzaburu.

On October 10, 2024, the Council of the European Union approved a package of legislative reforms aimed at improving the protection of industrial designs. This package includes a new regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 on Community designs, as well as a new directive that strengthens legal protection within the EU.

This article provides an in-depth exploration of the objectives of the new law on the protection of industrial designs, its main new features, opportunities, and effective date.

What are the objectives of the legislative reform package on designs?

This legislative review has several key objectives:

• Modernizing the systems for protecting industrial designs in the EU. The previous directive dated back to 1998, so the new regulation aims to better adapt to the current economic and technological context, including new market realities, digital innovations, and forms of commercialization.
• To create a protection model that is more accessible and attractive to individual designers and companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These stakeholders often faced numerous barriers, and the new law aims to provide more efficient and effective legal protection.

Design Protection: Key Developments

1. Introduction to the Term “European Union Design”

One of the main changes is the replacement of the term “Community design” with“European Union design.” This change reflects the need to modernize legal language and to standardize terminology in line with other concepts such as“European Union trademark.”

2. Expansion of the definition of products eligible for design protection

Previously, only designs incorporated into a physical object were considered protected. However, the reform extends this protection to a wider range of products, such as those displayed in a graphic or a digital environment.

The importance of the spatial arrangement of elements intended to form an interior or exterior environment is also recognized; and it is accepted that the animation, movement, or transition of a product’s characteristics can contribute to the appearance of the design.

3. A product's design features do not need to be visible

The scope of protection has been expanded, and a product's design features no longer need to be visible at a specific time or in a specific situation in order to qualify for design protection.

However, there is one exception: design protection for the components of a complex product is valid only if those components remain visible during the product’s normal use.

4. Remedy Clause

The repair clause is introduced with the aim of harmonizing the laws of the Member States regarding the use of protected designs, in order to allow for the repair of a complex product and restore it to its original appearance.

This provision takes effect when the design is applied to or incorporated into a product that constitutes a component of a complex product, where the protected design of the component depends on the appearance of that complex product.

5. Protection against unauthorized copies created using 3D printing technologies

In light of advances in 3D printing technologies, the new regulations establish specific measures to prevent the unauthorized reproduction of protected designs.

Thus, it is established that any action related to the creation, downloading, copying, distribution, or making available of any medium or software that incorporates a design, with the intent to reproduce a product that infringes on that protected design, must be subject to theauthorization of the rights holder.

Entry into Force and Opportunities Under the New Design Law

The new Directive was signed on October 23 by the presidents of the European Parliament and the Council, and will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication and will become applicable 4 months after that date. Member States will have 36 months to implement the necessary measures to transpose the new Directive into their national laws.

This reform opens up new opportunities for users of the design protection system, who will soon be able to benefit from an updated legal framework that offers new tools (a regulation and a directive) to more effectively protect all of their creations.

Pedro Saturio, Associate Partner in the Patent Practice Group at Elzaburu

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