In the fashion industry, where aesthetic innovation and differentiation are a constant goal, adequately protecting intangible assets is key to maintaining a competitive advantage.

Industrial design is the primary route companies typically take when they want to protect the appearance of their products. However, it is not the only option. There are other forms of protection that, depending on the business objectives and the nature of the mark, may also be of interest and even desirable.

Among them are so-called non-traditional trademarks, which allow for the protection of certain elements; if successfully registered, they grant the owner an exclusive right that can be extended indefinitely, provided that the corresponding fees are paid at the time of renewal.

When Does It Make Sense to Develop a Non-Traditional Brand?

Without delving into a theoretical definition (which we already covered in the article on types of trademarks), the significance of non-traditional trademarks in the fashion industry lies in identifying the point at which an element shifts from being merely aesthetic to serving a truly distinctive function.

The key lies not in the type of symbol, but in how the consumer perceives it: if that element allows the product’s business origin to be identified, its protection as a trademark may be considered.

Industrial Design in the Fashion Industry

Industrial design is the natural and customary legal tool for protecting the appearance of a product, especially in the fashion industry, which is characterized by constantly changing collections.

However, as certain elements become established in the market, they may acquire additional distinctive value that goes beyond their purely aesthetic aspect. It is at this point that it may make sense to supplement (or, in some cases, replace) the protection afforded by design protection with a trademark strategy.

This is justified because the design protection regime has two structural limitations that do not exist in the trademark system: first, the requirement of novelty and distinctiveness, which means that, prior to the filing or priority date, the design must not have been made available to the public, nor may there be any prior art that creates a similar overall impression; and, second, the limited duration of protection, which in the European Union is a maximum of 25 years.

Trademark Protection: The Key Lies in Consumer Perception

Regardless of the type of sign, the key factor in determining whether a trademark (traditional or otherwise) can be registered is its ability to identify the source of the business.

In other words, when consumers see that element, they should be able to recognize which company is behind it, even without having to read a name or logo.

This criterion is particularly relevant in the fashion industry, where numerous elements that initially serve an aesthetic purpose may, through their use in the market and the average consumer’s perception of them, come to acquire distinctive character.

In practice, this can be observed in situations such as the following:

• Unique packaging or shapes, particularly in the perfume and cosmetics industry, where the design of the bottle or container is sufficiently original to be perceived by consumers as an indicator of the company's origin.
• A color or combination of colors, provided they are specific and eye-catching for short statements.
• Promotional slogans that aren't perceived as purely laudatory.
• " Trade dress," that is, the overall appearance of a business establishment or commercial space, refers to situations where its design, layout, and visual elements make it possible to identify a specific company.

Examples of non-traditional brands in fashion and beauty

The fashion and beauty industry offers numerous examples of how certain elements have evolved from being purely aesthetic to becoming true hallmarks:

• The red sole of Louboutin (a trademark based on position and color) is one of the best-known examples, where protection focuses on the red sole of a high-heeled shoe and the specific location of that element on the product.

Louboutin's red sole. Source: Christian Louboutin website.

• Levi’s red label (positioning brand), which illustrates how a seemingly secondary element can become distinctive through its consistent use across all of the brand’s garments.

Levi’s Red Label. Source: Levi’s website 

• The three Adidas stripes (positioning mark), whose protection is based on their specific placement on the product.

Three Adidas stripes. Source: Adidas website.

• Burberry's “Check” pattern (a signature design), an example of a repeating design that has transcended its decorative function.

Burberry “Check” print. Source: Burberry website.

• The Louis Vuitton monogram (brand logo), based on the systematic repetition of a recognizable symbol. It is typically associated more with leather goods.

 Louis Vuitton monogram. Source: Louis Vuitton website.

• The Hermès Birkin bag (three-dimensional trademark), whose shape has become so well-known that it allows one to identify the brand.

Hermès Birkin bag. Source: Hermès website.

• Jean Paul Gaultier's perfume bottles (a three-dimensional brand), which demonstrate how a shape can function as a brand when it is particularly distinctive.

Jean Paul Gaultier perfume bottles. Source: Jean Paul Gaultier website.

• Sephora stores ( a three-dimensional brand), where the layout of the retail space (layout, colors, and visual elements) makes it possible to identify the company's origins.

 Sephora store at La Vaguada Shopping Center.

These cases share a common element: they are not merely attractive designs, but rather signs that, over time and through use in the marketplace, have acquired a clear identifying function.

Limitations and Strategic Value: Protection Beyond Registration

The protection of non-traditional trademarks offers significant advantages, but it is not without its challenges. Not every aesthetic element can become a trademark, especially in an industry such as fashion, where many signs serve primarily a decorative function.

Although, from a legal standpoint, no higher degree of distinctiveness is required than for traditional trademarks (word or design trademarks), the practice of trademark offices (especially the EUIPO) shows that, in order to meet the minimum threshold of distinctiveness, the claimed shape, configuration, or color must differ significantly from the customary practices and standards of the industry.

Otherwise, such elements will be perceived as intrinsic characteristics of the product or its presentation, which, in most cases, leads to the refusal of registration due to a lack of distinctiveness; the applicant must then demonstrate, if applicable, that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use in the market or has acquired secondary meaning.

Once the threshold of distinctiveness has been met, trademark protection provides significant strategic value. Unlike industrial design protection, it allows for indefinite protection, provided it is renewed.

From a practical standpoint, this is particularly relevant in the fight against counterfeits and imitations, since trademark protection allows for action not only against identical copies but also against marks that create a risk of confusion or association in the mind of the consumer.

Protection of Intangible Assets in the Fashion Industry: A Strategic Issue

In the fashion industry, protecting intangible assets requires a flexible approach tailored to each specific case. There is no single optimal approach; rather, there are various tools that must be combined depending on the business objectives and the nature of the mark.

Non-traditional trademarks, although less common, can play an important role in this strategy when the protected element goes beyond its aesthetic dimension and becomes part of the brand’s identity.

Cristina Velasco, Senior Associate in the Trademark Practice Group at ELZABURU.

Proof of use has become a decisive factor in trademark opposition proceedings in Spain and the European Union. Its introduction into Spanish law in 2019 has brought about a significant change in the strategy for defending trademark rights, requiring owners to demonstrate actual use of their trademarks in certain cases.

This mechanism not only affects the outcome of a competitive examination but also has a direct impact on the active management of companies' intangible assets.

What is proof of use of a trademark?

The use defense is the right of a trademark applicant to require the opponent to prove that its earlier trademark has been effectively used in the marketplace.

Specifically, this requirement applies when the earlier trademark on which the opposition is based has been registered for more than five years at the time the contested application is filed.

If the owner of the earlier trademark fails to prove such use, the consequence is clear: the opposition is dismissed.

What is meant by "genuine use" of a trademark?

The concept of trademark use is not limited to symbolic or residual use. The law requires actual use sufficient to fulfill its essential function: to identify the commercial origin of the goods or services.

The following is not considered effective use:

• Merely symbolic use
• Isolated actions with no real impact on the market
• Uses intended solely to maintain the registration without any actual commercial activity

On the contrary, the use must be public, external, and market-oriented, and related to the goods or services protected by the trademark.

Requirements for Proof of Use in a Trademark Opposition Proceeding

For evidence of use to be admissible in a trademark opposition proceeding, it must demonstrate all four of the following key elements:

1. Location

It must be demonstrated that the trademark has been used in the territory where it is protected, although it is not necessary to cover the entire territory.

2. Time

The use must have occurred within the five years prior to the contested application.

3. Scope

The intensity of use is evaluated based on sales volume, frequency, duration, or market penetration.

4. Nature

The trademark must be used in accordance with its registration, without altering its distinctive character.

These four factors do not have to be substantiated in a single document, but they must be proven collectively.

What evidence can be submitted?

Proof of a trademark's use is based on a body of evidence that, when analyzed collectively, demonstrates its actual use in the marketplace.

Some of the most common tests include:

• Invoices and delivery slips
• Sales Catalogs
• Media Advertising and Promotional Materials
• Product or packaging photographs
• Participation in trade shows or events
• Sales reports or market research
• Digital evidence (web, social media)

A key point is that this evidence must include information on dates, territory, and the manner of use; otherwise, it may not be taken into account.

Consequences of Failing to Prove Use of a Trademark

The lack of proof of use has a direct impact on trademark opposition proceedings.

If the opponent:

• Failure to submit evidence by the deadline
• Presents insufficient evidence
• Or submits evidence that fails to demonstrate actual use

The objection will be dismissed.

This means that a registered trademark may lose its ability to defend against new applications if it is not being used properly in the marketplace.

In addition, and apart from opposition proceedings, an earlier trademark that is not in use may be subject to a cancellation action, which could result in the loss of the registration.

Usability Testing and Rebranding: A Critical Point

Usage testing is particularly important in rebranding processes, where brands evolve over time.

Use must be consistent with the registration or, at the very least, must not alter the trademark’s distinctive character. If the trademark as used differs substantially from the registered trademark, there is a risk that the use will not be deemed established.

Therefore, taking a cautious approach:

• It is advisable to ensure that actual usage matches what is recorded.
• Update the records as the brand evolves.
• Consider registering word marks to strengthen protection.

The test of use as a strategic element

Product testing has evolved from a technical issue to a strategic element in brand management.

It is not enough to simply register a trademark; it must be used effectively, consistently, and in a documented manner. Otherwise, its defensibility in opposition proceedings may be compromised.

In this context, active management of the trademark portfolio is key. This includes not only registration but also monitoring the actual use of trademarks and ensuring they remain consistent with the registration, especially in situations involving evolution or repositioning.

In these types of situations, having access to specialized advice makes it possible to anticipate risks, properly structure the proof of use, and strengthen the brand’s position in opposition proceedings, incorporating aspects such as trademark monitoring and strategic management of the trademark portfolio.

Lucía Palomino, an attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu,

A Brazilian company sells granola, cereal, and bars under the brand name AUSTRALIA:

The choice is striking: Can a company commercially appropriate the name of a country with which its products do not necessarily share an origin?

The short answer is: it depends. Registering the name of a country is not prohibited per se; the problem arises when consumers might interpret that geographic name as information about the products or services rather than as an indicator of their business origin.

The AUSTRALIA case is particularly interesting because it illustrates the extent to which the same branding strategy can play out very differently in Brazil and in the European Union.

AUSTRALIA: From Geographic Reference to Brand Identity

Hart’s Alimentos Naturais is a Brazilian company that specializes in healthy food products such as granola, cereal, and protein bars. The company’s history links its choice of the “Australia” concept to one of its founders’ experiences in that country and to certain values associated with her lifestyle.

The company has registrations in Brazil that include the term, such as HART’S NATURAL GRANOLA AUSTRALIA, GRANOLA AUSTRALIA, and CHOCOPOPS AUSTRALIA, and filed an application in September 2025 for products in Class 30.

The company has also expanded beyond Brazil. In May 2026, it filed a trademark application in Uruguay for products in classes 5 and 30.

But would this strategy be equally viable in the European Union?

Can the name of a country be registered as a trademark in the European Union?

The fact that a word is the name of a country, a city, or a region does not automatically prevent it from being registered as a trademark.

The key lies in whether or not the geographical origin is descriptive. According to European case law, the key is to determine whether consumers perceive “Australia” as an indicator of actual origin or as an evocative or fanciful trademark.

And here’s the interesting part: for example, the EUIPO rejected trademark No. 016746414 “AUSTRALIA” in classes 12, 25, 28, 35, and 37 (R 2207/2017-2), taking into account the country’s political and economic stature and weight, and concluded that, given its climate and harsh natural conditions, the sign could be perceived as indicating that the goods and services are “built to last.”

And, specifically in the food sector, in the ICELAND case (Grand Chamber, R 1238/2019-G), it was established that the names of countries are perceived differently from other geographical indications, because consumers tend to assume the national origin of the products. In that case, the trademark was denied for products in classes 29, 30, 31, and 32, as the country projects a positive image—innovation, sustainability, nature—capable of influencing purchasing decisions.

But there is a second issue that should not be overlooked. Beyond descriptiveness, the fact that the trademark is “AUSTRALIA” while the company is Brazilian and the products are of Brazilian origin could open the door to a ban on the grounds of misleading nature: a mark that leads consumers to believe that the products come from Australia when they actually come from another country may be considered misleading regarding geographic origin. And this obstacle is particularly sensitive because—unlike descriptiveness—it cannot be overcome by distinctiveness acquired through use.

In short, it is possible to register a trademark using the name of a country, but the better known the country is and the better its “image” is for those products or services, the more difficult it becomes. In the food and wellness sectors, a country like Australia—which is associated with nature, sports, and healthy living—is likely to raise concerns at the Trademark Office regarding descriptiveness or the risk of misleading consumers about the origin.

And it is worth emphasizing that this issue is not limited to registration: the use of the trademark can also be controversial. The common denominator is the same as in the registration process—the risk of misleading consumers regarding the geographic origin—but the difference is that, in the context of use, this risk is addressed not only by trademark law (which may result in the trademark’s revocation if its use is misleading) but, above all, by laws governing unfair competition, consumer protection, and labeling, with standing to bring claims open to competitors and authorities.

The same brand can yield different results depending on the region

The case also highlights a fundamental characteristic of trademark law: rights are territorial, and a mark that is registrable in one country is not necessarily eligible for registration in another.

In Brazil, Hart’s has successfully registered several trademarks that include the term “AUSTRALIA” by taking advantage of a provision expressly provided for in Brazilian law. Article 181 of the Industrial Property Law [1] establishes that a geographic name that does not constitute an indication of source or a designation of origin may serve as a distinctive element of a trademark for a product or service, provided that it does not mislead as to the true origin. In other words, the law does not authorize the registration of the geographic name as such, but rather its use as one of the elements that characterize and comprise the mark, subject to the essential condition that it does not create a misleading association regarding the true origin of the goods or services.

In the European Union, the analysis is based on a similar rationale—to prevent the monopolization of descriptive terms or terms that could be misleading—but EUIPO’s practice has developed a particularly stringent standard with respect to certain geographic names. Case law (beginning with Chiemsee[2]) has established a multi-step test that requires: (i) identifying the geographic location designated by the trademark; (ii) assessing the degree of familiarity with that location among the relevant public; (iii) evaluating the suitability of the location as the origin, place of manufacture, or place of design of the goods and services; (iv) assessing whether the public currently associates the place with the goods or services; (v) if no such association exists today, determining whether it is reasonable to assume that one will be established in the future, taking into account the public’s familiarity with the name and the characteristics of the place; and (vi) analyzing the significance of the place for the quality or characteristics of the goods and services in the eyes of the target public.

This criterion explains why the EUIPO has come to consider a name such as “AUSTRALIA” to be descriptive or lacking distinctiveness, on the grounds that it evokes a certain attitude toward life and a reputation that may influence consumer choice. The outcome will always depend on the goods and services, public perception, and the specific circumstances surrounding the mark. But it does demonstrate that a viable trademark strategy in the home market may face different obstacles when it goes global.

In the case of Hart’s, there is currently no application on file containing the term “AUSTRALIA” that would be effective in any European Union country. Therefore, we do not yet know what the outcome of a potential application in that jurisdiction would be. Existing precedents, however, suggest that the use of “AUSTRALIA” as a trademark would have to withstand particularly rigorous scrutiny.

Yet another reason to assess a trademark’s registrability not only in the market where it originates, but also in the territories to which it is likely to expand in the future.

Lorena Sánchez Merino, attorneyin the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu.

[1] Law No. 9,279, dated May 14, 1996

[2] May 4, 1999, C-108/97 and C-109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has rejected the application for the European Union trademark “LUX” filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. The decision is based on the perception that the Romanian-speaking public in the European Union would have of the term, considering that it would not be understood as an indication of business origin, but rather as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality, or select products and services.

This case is relevant to any company or creator seeking to protect a name throughout the European Union. The unitary nature of the European trademark means that an obstacle identified in one part of the territory can prevent registration in all Member States.

What products and services was the LUX trademark intended to protect?

The European Union Intellectual Property Office has, in the first instance, rejected European Union trademark application No. 019198973 “LUX” filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. This application sought to distinguish goods and services in classes 9, 25, and 41, which include, among others, musical recordings, downloadable audiovisual content, CDs, vinyl records, DVDs, eyewear, smartphones, cameras, headphones, smartwatches, electronic publications, clothing, footwear, and musical entertainment services and live performances.

The request therefore covered various areas related to the artist's musical activities and the commercial use of her image, ranging from recordings and digital publications to technology products, fashion, and live performances.

The proceedings began with an initial objection issued by the EUIPO on July 10, 2025. The applicant filed a response on September 11 of that year. After reviewing it, the Office issued a second notice of grounds for refusal on February 3, 2026, in which it elaborated on its analysis in greater detail. Since no further response was filed within the allotted time, the EUIPO upheld the objection and rejected the application on July 8, 2026.

Why does the EUIPO believe that "LUX" cannot be registered as a trademark?

The Office has determined that the sign “LUX” is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness for the Romanian-speaking public in the European Union. According to the EUIPO, that public would perceive the term as a direct reference to “luxury,” “superior quality,” “exclusive,” or “exceptional,” and not as an indication of commercial origin.

Consequently, the Office understands that LUX conveys a promotional or laudatory message applicable to the goods and services covered by the application, including musical recordings, audiovisual content, clothing, footwear, and entertainment services. In other words, consumers would not view LUX as a trademark that identifies the commercial origin of those goods or services, but rather as an indication that they are premium, exclusive, or high-quality.

Distinctiveness is precisely what enables a trademark to fulfill its essential function, which is none other than allowing consumers to associate certain products or services with a specific company and distinguish them from those of other operators. A promotional expression is not automatically excluded from registration, but it must also be capable of serving as an indication of the company’s origin.

According to the EUIPO, this is not the case with LUX. For the relevant public, the term would merely highlight a positive quality of the goods and services, without incorporating any unexpected element, wordplay, or particular construction that would require the consumer to make an interpretive effort. Therefore, the descriptive and laudatory perception would prevail over the distinctive function inherent in a trademark.

Is the denial based solely on the Romanian public?

Yes. Although in its first communication the EUIPO referred to both the English-speaking public and the Romanian-speaking public, in the second communication the objection focused solely on the perception of the European Union by the Romanian-speaking public. The final decision refers to the grounds set forth in that second communication, which the Office considers an integral part of the decision.

This point is particularly relevant because it confirms one of the distinctive features of the European Union trademark: it is sufficient for there to be a ground for refusal in any part of the Union for the application to be refused in its entirety. In this case, the EUIPO considered it sufficient that the term “LUX” was perceived by the Romanian-speaking public as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality, or select goods and services.

What arguments did the petitioner raise?

The applicant argued that the mark applied for was “LUX,” not the English term “luxury,” and therefore the two marks could not automatically be equated. She also challenged the linguistic sources used by the Office and contended that “LUX” could be understood to have other meanings, in particular as the unit of measurement for illumination or as the Latin term for “light.”

In addition, the party cited the existence of other trademark registrations that included the element “LUX,” both with the EUIPO itself and with the Romanian trademark office, and noted that an equivalent application had been accepted for publication in the United Kingdom.

The EUIPO rejected these arguments. In particular, it held that the fact that “LUX” might have other meanings did not preclude a finding that it was descriptive or laudatory if, for the relevant public, one of its possible connotations was luxury, superior quality, or exclusivity with respect to the goods and services claimed.

The Office also noted that the European Union trademark system is autonomous and is not bound by previous decisions of the EUIPO itself, national offices of Member States, or offices of third countries. Although such precedents may be taken into consideration, each application must be examined based on its specific goods and services, the relevant public, and the circumstances existing at the time of examination.

Therefore, the prior acceptance of other marks that incorporated “LUX” was not sufficient to alter the Office’s conclusion in this case.

Is the rejection of the LUX trademark final?

No. The decision was issued at first instance and may be appealed before the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO. The appeal must be filed within two months of notification, and the statement of grounds may be submitted within four months of that same date.

Lucía Palomino, Attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at ELZABURU

Image:Rosalía's website

What happens when a stadium hosting a World Cup match is named after a brand that does not officially sponsor the competition?

The controversy surrounding some of the stadiums for the 2026 World Cup clearly reflects this tension, as many sports venues are typically identified by logos associated with major brands.

Behind this situation lie so-called naming rights agreements, through which a company acquires the right to associate its brand with the name of a stadium for a specific period of time in exchange for financial compensation. These contracts are a major source of revenue for stadium owners and, at the same time, a powerful branding tool for sponsoring companies, which aim to ensure that the public immediately associates the stadium with their brand.

In the recent competition, the event organizers required that the use of those brands be omitted and that neutral terms be used instead.

This establishes a framework in which industrial property rights, existing naming rights agreements, the 2026 World Cup sponsorship program, and the international broadcasts of a global sporting event coexist.

Why do some stadiums change their names during the World Cup?

The organization is requiring the stadiums selected to host the matches to change their names to prevent brands that are not sponsors of the event from appearing to be officially associated with the tournament.

The World Cup has a sponsorship program based on the granting of exclusive rights for commercial exploitation of certain categories of products and services. This exclusivity is one of the main assets of sports sponsorship, since those who become official sponsors seek not only to gain visibility during the event but also to prevent competitors or third parties from benefiting from its media exposure without having borne the cost of that investment.

For this reason, organizers enforce “clean site” policies. Under these guidelines, areas associated with the competition must be free of logos and advertising elements not included in the official sponsorship program. This requirement may apply to indoor advertising, signage, building facades, advertising displays visible from the stands, press areas, and, in some cases, the stadium’s name itself.

The goal is not to permanently remove the commercial branding or to question the validity of the naming rights agreements, but rather to temporarily suspend their visibility while the stadium is integrated into the tournament’s official environment. This preserves the commercial exclusivity agreed upon with the official sponsors and prevents third parties from gaining an indirect association with the competition.

Where is the connection to intellectual property?

The connection lies in the coexistence of different trademark rights and in the use of distinctive signs at an event subject to a regime of commercial exclusivity.

Industrial property rights protect trademarks, trade names, and distinctive signs that identify the commercial origin of products or services. At a World Cup, the official trademarks of the competition, the trademarks of authorized sponsors, licensing rights, and naming rights agreements that commercially identify the stadiums all come together.

A conflict arises when a brand that is not part of the group of official sponsors gains visibility within the event’s perimeter. This exposure takes on special value due to the international distribution of broadcasts, photographs, and informational and digital content related to the tournament, which can lead the public to perceive a commercial connection with the competition.

However, this presence does not generally constitute unauthorized use of the trademark, but rather the legitimate exercise of a naming rights agreement previously entered into with the venue’s owner or operator. The challenge lies in reconciling that contract with the obligations assumed by the venue toward the organizer and with the exclusive rights granted to official sponsors.

From a branding perspective, naming rights agreements aim to establish a stable association between a brand and a sports venue. This continuity helps the public spontaneously associate the stadium with the sponsoring brand and is one of the main factors that justify the investment made.

Therefore, successive name changes or the temporary use of neutral names during major competitions do not weaken the trademark in a legal sense nor do they affect the validity of trademark rights; however, they may reduce the effectiveness of the distinctive and promotional functions that these agreements seek to achieve, by making it more difficult for consumers to maintain an immediate and stable association between the stadium and the sponsoring brand.

The Atlanta Case: When Canceling a Trademark Isn't So Easy

The case of Atlanta shows that “clean site” policies can run into practical limits.

Mercedes-Benz Stadium, the home of the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United, is one of the most telling examples. During the World Cup, it has been referred to as Atlanta Stadium, following a practice already implemented during Euro 2024, when stadiums such as the Allianz Arena were temporarily renamed the Munich Football Arena.

However, the Mercedes-Benz emblem integrated into the roof of the venue poses an additional challenge. Since it is part of the structural design of the retractable roof, removing or covering it is not comparable to removing a conventional advertising sign, as it could compromise the integrity of the structure or incur disproportionate costs.

This scenario illustrates that the requirements stemming from the “clean site” policy reach their limit when the brand is an inseparable part of the stadium’s infrastructure itself.

The solution, therefore, has not been to remove the distinctive mark, but rather to adopt balanced solutions through negotiation between the parties: retaining the architectural element, limiting its visibility in broadcasts, and avoiding any additional use that might suggest a commercial association with the competition

The Digital Dimension: Brands, Campaigns, and Social Media During the World Cup

Intellectual property isn't just at stake in the stadium—it's also at stake in the digital realm.

The use of terms such as FIFA, World Cup, Copa Mundial, or other official names of the tournament may pose risks when used for commercial purposes. A company may report on, comment on, or make descriptive references to the event within certain limits. Although companies may report on, comment on, or make purely descriptive references to the event, the problem arises when those signs are used to promote products or services, attract traffic, or suggest an official connection to the competition that does not actually exist.

For this reason, companies that are not part of the official sponsorship program should exercise extreme caution in their campaigns during the World Cup.

The risk is not limited to the use of official logos; it may also arise from the use of phrases, colors, symbols, images of the trophy, references to host cities, or combinations of elements that, when considered together, are likely to convey to consumers a commercial association with the tournament.

Ultimately, the legal risk does not depend solely on the use of a registered trademark, but rather on whether the campaign as a whole could mislead the public into believing that there is a commercial relationship, sponsorship, or authorization by the World Cup organizing committee.

What Can Companies Learn from This Situation?

The controversy surrounding the 2026 World Cup stadiums demonstrates that intellectual property requires the coordination of interests that, while legitimate, may conflict: naming rights contracts, the rights of official sponsors, and the commercial rules imposed by the organizers of major sporting events.

This scenario highlights that brand management at major sporting events requires striking a balance between equally legitimate commercial rights. Organizers must preserve the exclusivity acquired by their official sponsors, while stadium owners and sponsors linked through naming rights agreements must be able to protect the economic value and identity built around their brands.

In this context, naming rights agreements must address potential conflicts from the outset, including the hosting of major international competitions, temporary name changes, and limitations arising from “clean site” policies. The key is not to eliminate certain rights in favor of others, but rather to establish contractual mechanisms that allow them to coexist and prevent either party from having the commercial value of its brand unjustifiably compromised. The key is to plan ahead. Reviewing contracts, identifying potential risks, and defining a clear brand usage strategy helps prevent conflicts and ensures a balanced coexistence among all the rights involved in an environment of maximum public exposure.

Alba María López
Associate Partner in the Legal, Business, and Contracts Department at Elzaburu

In Jersey, trademark protection is simple and efficient; however, until now, it could only be obtained by extending a British registration or through the Madrid Protocol by designating the United Kingdom.

Back in 2024, we announced on our blog that the country’s government was working on establishing its own independent trademark registry, which was expected to launch in the near future. Well, that moment will arrive on August 1, 2026—the date announced for the launch of the Jersey Trademark Registry.

What has changed regarding trademark protection in Jersey?

Effective August 1, 2026, Jersey may be designated directly and independently with the Jersey office or as a designation through the Madrid System. This will make it possible to protect trademarks in this territory without necessarily relying on the United Kingdom.

From that point on, the new office will serve as the administrator of trademark rights in the country, as the office of origin for extending trademarks through the Madrid System, and as a Contracting Party if designated in an international application.

This development is significant for owners of international trademarks, as they will be able to include the country as a specific territory in their protection strategy, especially when they have business activities targeting this market.

Declaration of Intended Use in Jersey

One of the most notable features of Jersey as a Contracting Party to the Madrid System is that its selection will require a declaration of intent to use, and applicants must therefore comply with the formal requirements established by the office.

It is important to keep this requirement in mind from the outset, because it is not simply a matter of adding a new territory to an international application. The designation of Jersey must be consistent with a realistic expectation of use of the trademark in that country and with the formal requirements ultimately established by its trademark office.

What will happen to existing trademark rights in Jersey?

Whenever changes of this magnitude occur, the most immediate question—and the one that causes the greatest concern—is how the new developments fit into the previous status quo.

It is likely that the rights obtained in Jersey following the extension of a British trademark will remain unchanged, although it remains to be seen how the interdependence of their validity will be structured. I would venture to predict that the right will remain independent while retaining the priority dates of the British trademark.

With regard to international trademarks designating the United Kingdom that are already registered as of the effective date—that is, August 1, 2026—a smooth transition is anticipated through a sort of “pseudo-cloning”of the designation from the parent trademark in the UK to a new subsidiary trademark in Jersey.

Cases pending as of August 1, 2026

For applications pending prior to the effective date, independent protection in Jersey will be granted once the registration procedure in the United Kingdom has been completed; if registration is not granted by August 1, no rights will arise in Jersey.

However, it is understood that, as of August 1, 2026, a new, independent appointment may be made in Jersey, which would not be affected by events that occurred in the United Kingdom.

But what will happen to proceedings that are pending as of August 1 and that are ultimately dismissed in the United Kingdom after August 1? As I understand it, these will have no effect in Jersey, and they will necessarily have to be replicated directly in the new jurisdiction.

What Companies with International Brands Should Review

From a practical standpoint, this change makes it advisable to review international portfolios before the new system takes effect. It is important to identify which trademarks are currently protected in Jersey by extension of a British right, which United Kingdom designations are still pending, and in which cases it may be advisable to apply for a separate Jersey designation as of August 1, 2026.

The inclusion of Jersey as a separate designation within the Madrid System provides greater clarity and flexibility, but it also requires at least a review of existing rights to avoid any issues. For companies with interests in this territory, taking proactive steps will be the best way to avoid uncertainty regarding the actual scope of their trademark protection.

Cristina Arroyo, Associate Partner and Director of the International Trademark Practice at ELZABURU

Organizing a papal visit requires complex planning: security, transportation, credentials, accommodations for pilgrims, institutional communications, and coordination among various government agencies and organizations.

But there is another, less visible element that is also part of those preparations: the protection of the distinctive symbols that officially identify the event.

At these types of events, the logo, slogan, or graphic image are what allow the public to identify official communications, recognize authorized products, and distinguish which uses are actually endorsed by the organization.

That is why, before and during an event of this nature, trademark protection can be a particularly useful tool. It is not just a matter of registering a symbol; it is about protecting the event’s identity and its commercial exploitation.

Trademark registrations related to Pope Leo XIV's visit to Spain

On the occasion of Pope Leo XIV's visit to Spain, the Spanish Episcopal Conference has filed an application with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office to protect the official symbols associated with the trip.

Specifically, two national trademark applications have been identified for the official logo—one in color and one in black and white—as well as protection for the slogan “Look Up.”

Trademark applications filed by the Episcopal Conference with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) in connection with Pope Leo XIV's visit to Spain

The visit generates a flurry of media activity and a natural demand for commemorative products: T-shirts, mugs, rosaries, publications, posters, souvenirs, and promotional materials. Therefore, having registered trademarks allows us to control who can use the logo or slogan, under what conditions, and for which products or services.

This trend clearly illustrates how intellectual property functions in events with significant public impact. Even in the case of a religious and institutional event, its identifying symbols can take on a highly significant economic, reputational, and organizational dimension.

This is not a new practice at papal visits and major religious gatherings

The protection of symbols associated with papal visits or major religious gatherings is nothing new. In previous years, various organizations have protected logos, slogans, and names associated with these events.

A recent example can be found in World Youth Day 2023 in Lisbon, whose logo and motto were designed as central elements of the event’s identity. These symbols served not only to convey the event’s spiritual message but also to identify official materials, authorized products, campaigns, credentials, and communication media.

Trademark registration filed by Fundação JMJ Lisboa 2023 with the EUIPO for Pope Francis's visit to Lisbon

Other countries have also registered slogans or logos associated with papal visits, precisely to prevent unauthorized commercial use and preserve the institutional identity of the trip.

In Colombia, on the occasion of Pope Francis’s visit in September 2017, the Colombian Episcopal Conference adopted the motto “Let’s Take the First Step” for religious services.

Trademark registration filed by the Colombian Episcopal Conference with the EUIPO for Pope Francis’s visit to Colombia (2017)

In Chile, the Chilean Episcopal Conference adopted the slogan “My peace I give to you,” in connection with the papal visit in January 2018.

Trademark registration filed by the Chilean Episcopal Conference with the EUIPO for Pope Francis’s visit to Chile (2018)

And in the United States, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia registered several slogans related to Pope Francis’s 2015 visit, including “Love is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive” and its Spanish version, “El amor es nuestra misión: la familia plenamente viva,” although these registrations are no longer in effect.

The logic is similar to that applied to sporting events, world’s fairs, international conferences, or major cultural festivals: when an event creates a recognizable identity and generates associated economic activity, its distinctive symbols may require protection.

Event Branding: A Lesson for Businesses and Institutions

The Pope's visit is, first and foremost, a religious and institutional event. But it is also an event with a visual identity, an official message, coordinated communication, and associated economic activity.

Any event with its own identity can generate intangible assets that should be identified and protected from the outset. Trade shows, conferences, corporate anniversaries, festivals, institutional campaigns, international gatherings, or product launches can create symbols with their own value: names, slogans, logos, hashtags, visual identities, or specific designations.

Failing to protect them in a timely manner can open the door to unauthorized use, third-party registrations, or conflicts that hinder communication and the promotion of the event. It can also complicate the management of merchandise, sponsorships, partnerships, or official materials.

For this reason, trademark strategy must be part of the planning process from the very beginning. Before launching a public identity, it is advisable to conduct preliminary searches, assess the registrability of the mark, correctly define the relevant goods and services, and decide in which territories it is in the company’s interest to protect it.

Rosa Torrecillas, associate in the Trademark practice group at Elzaburu

Frequently Asked Questions About Brands and Events

Can an event's slogan be registered as a trademark?

Yes, provided that the slogan has distinctive character and does not fall under any absolute prohibitions on registration. It must be capable of identifying a business, institutional, or organizational source in connection with specific goods or services.

Why register the logo for a conference or convention?

Because it allows you to control its use, authorize it through licenses, and take action against third parties who use it without consent, especially in products or services related to the event.

Does registration prevent any use of the mark?

Not necessarily. The protection depends on the scope of the registration, the designated goods and services, and the type of use by third parties. Each case must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

What about unauthorized merchandise?

If you use registered trademarks or create confusion regarding their official status, the trademark owner may take legal action to demand that you cease such use, recall the products, and, if applicable, pay damages.

What should companies do before launching an event with its own brand identity?

Conduct a preliminary availability search, define the marks you wish to protect, properly select the classes of goods and services, and assess the necessary territorial protection.

The digital environment has put pressure on one of the classic principles of trademark law: territoriality. In a context where any website is potentially accessible from multiple countries, a key question arises for companies and rights holders: under what circumstances is an online activity considered to be directed at the public of the European Union (EU) and, consequently, likely to constitute a trademark infringement in that territory?

The ruling by the Provincial Court of Alicante dated September 15, 2025, provides relevant criteria in this regard by analyzing whether the activities of the website camelstore.com constituted an infringement of the Spanish and EU CAMEL trademarks.

The CAMEL Case: Context and Conflict

The litigation pitted Japan Tobacco Inc., the owner of several CAMEL trademarks, against two companies that sold products (footwear, clothing, and accessories) using marks—both word marks and graphic marks—that were identical or very similar to that trademark.

The business was conducted online, primarily through the website camelstore.com.

The lawsuit was initially dismissed. The court found that it had not been sufficiently proven that the activity was directed at the EU public, even though the website was accessible from within the EU. Among the factors considered were the use of English, pricing in U.S. dollars, and the absence of explicit references to the EU.

However, the Provincial Court reviews this approach and offers an interpretation that is more in line with the reality of e-commerce.

Accessibility vs. Targeted Activity: The Key to Trademark Law

One of the key points of the ruling is the confirmation of a well-established principle in European trademark law: the mere fact that a website is accessible from the EU is not sufficient to establish infringement.

For an infringement to exist, it must be established that the sign is used in the course of trade within the EU. This involves determining whether the activity is in fact directed at consumers in this territory, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This approach prevents the automatic and excessive application of trademark law on the Internet, but it also requires a more rigorous evidentiary analysis.

Evidence demonstrating the EU's market orientation

Unlike the court of first instance, the Provincial Court found that there was indeed sufficient evidence to establish that camelstore.com’s activities were directed at the EU public.

Actual sales in the EU

One of the most decisive factors was the existence of actual sales to consumers in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal. This demonstrates that the activity was not merely potential but was actually taking place in the EU market.

Uninterrupted commercial operations in the EU

The documentation provided showed hundreds of transactions destined for EU countries, indicating stable, ongoing commercial activity in this region rather than isolated transactions.

Specific Shipping Terms for the EU

The website included detailed information on shipping to 23 EU countries, including delivery times, costs, and terms. This feature reinforces the company's intention to target European consumers in a clear and organized manner.

Language and currency: non-determining factors

The Court ruled that the use of English or U.S. dollars does not preclude a focus on the EU. English is commonly used in international trade, and automatic currency conversion eliminates real barriers for consumers.

Use of Additional Platforms

In addition to the website, the products were sold in the EU through platforms such as AliExpress, which reinforced the existence of a sales strategy in the EU market.

Trademark Infringement: Use in the EU Economy

Once the EU market orientation has been established, the Court examines whether there has been a trademark infringement.

The court concludes that it does, based on several factors:

• Identity or high similarity between the signs used and the CAMEL trademarks
• Use for identical or related products
• Reputation of the prior trademark
• The existence of a connection in the consumer's mind

In this context, it finds that there has been an improper exploitation of the trademark’s distinctiveness and reputation, which constitutes an infringement under Spanish and EU trademark law.

Legal Consequences of the Judgment

The Provincial Court overturns the lower court's decision and grants the claim.

Among the main measures agreed upon are:

• Discontinuation of the Use of the CAMEL Trademark and the camelstore.com Domain Name
• Recall and Destruction of Non-Compliant Products
• Compensation for damages (calculated, among other criteria, based on gross revenue)
• Daily penalty for noncompliance

Practical Takeaways from the Case for Trademark Law

This ruling confirms that, in the field of trademark law, infringement on the Internet cannot be analyzed based on a single, isolated factor. Neither the accessibility of a website from within the EU is sufficient, nor do factors such as language, currency, or domain name, taken alone, rule out the existence of infringement. The analysis must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the available evidence.

The decisive factor is being able to establish that the mark is used in the course of trade within the EU. In this case, the existence of actual sales, shipping arrangements to multiple EU countries, and ongoing commercial operations were key to demonstrating that the activity was directed toward the EU market.

From a broader perspective, this case reflects one of the main challenges currently facing trademark law: balancing the global nature of the Internet with the principle of territoriality. The ruling shows that mere accessibility or isolated sales are not sufficient; rather, a contextual and evidentiary analysis is necessary to determine the true focus of the commercial activity.

For companies, this approach has direct implications for both the protection of their trademarks and their digital strategies. Monitoring, evidence gathering, and analyzing how online marketing is structured are essential for identifying risks and acting with legal certainty in an increasingly globalized environment.

Lorena Sánchez, Attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu

The year 2026 marks the 30th anniversary of the launch of Andorra’s trademark registry. Since then—and especially following the opening of the Office of Trademarks and Patents of the Principality of Andorra (OMPA) in December 1996—the country has gained prominence as a highly attractive jurisdiction for both domestic and international companies interested in protecting their intangible assets.

Over the past three decades, Andorra has gained significant international recognition and undergone major economic development. At the same time, its trademark system and registry have evolved from a traditional administrative structure into a modern, digitized agency. This anniversary coincides with a particularly significant moment for many rights holders who filed their trademark applications between 1996 and 1997, as those trademarks are now nearing renewal.

Trademark Registration in Andorra: The Beginnings of the OMPA

At 9:00 a.m. on December 5, 1996, the facilities that would receive the first trademark applications processed by the Office of Trademarks and Patents of the Principality of Andorra (hereinafter, OMPA) opened their doors in the former B&B Club building.

The first applications came mainly from Andorran public agencies and international companies that were particularly concerned with protecting their industrial property. The speed with which those initial applications were processed already foreshadowed one of the features that would come to characterize the Andorran system: streamlined procedures and simple, efficient management of the registry.

Andorran legislation was also designed to be in line with international standards, even though Andorra has not acceded to the Madrid Protocol for the registration of trademarks and is not a member of the European Union. However, the Nice Classification is applied (with some modifications), and trademarks are valid for ten years from the filing date, renewable indefinitely for successive periods of ten years.

From its inception, the Andorran system was well received by international taxpayers, particularly companies with interests in Spain and France. The procedure was established in Catalan, the country’s official language, and the euro was designated as the currency for the payment of fees, even though Andorra is not a member of the European Union.

In recent decades, the Principality has established itself as an idyllic setting for business, finance, tourism, and commerce, which has also led to an increase in trademark registrations in the country, with an annual growth rate exceeding 25 percent.

What were the first trademarks registered in Andorra?

The first trademarks registered in Andorra had a distinctly institutional character. Thus, applications Nos. 1 and 2 were filed by the Government of Andorra, Department of Tourism, and included the well-known trademark “Andorra, the country of the Pyrenees” and its logo—one of the country’s longest-running slogans—which promotes the country’s natural beauty, mountain sports, and exclusive shopping.

• No. 1 trademark “Andorra, el país dels Pirineus,” filed on December 5, 1996, at 9:06 a.m.
• Trademark No. 2 filed on the same day at 9:18 a.m.

The third trademark registered in Andorra was that of the Institut Nacional Andorrà de Finances, filed on December 5, 1996, at 9:34 a.m.

Following the aforementioned public entities—and likely out of deference and in recognition of the symbolic nature of the occasion—private and foreign companies did not appear until positions 4, 5, and 7. Anheuser-Busch, LLC took great care to submit its brands at 10:47, 10:56, and 11:35, respectively, by submitting the corresponding forms for its flagship brands to the office:

BUD

BUDWEISER

Now at number 15, the Spanish hotel group Meliá has submitted an application for its flagship brand, GRAN MELIÁ—one of the leading brands in the tourism sector—demonstrating the importance of this sector to the region’s economy.

How Andorran Trademark Law Has Evolved

The evolution of Andorra’s trademark system did not come to a halt following the opening of the OMPA and the subsequent creation of the Servei de Signes d’Estat, which is attached to the OMPA, in 1998.

As a result of the efforts toward modernization and technological development over the past decade, the integration of the Electronic City Hall and the Transparency Portal—which allow certain procedures to be completed online—are particularly noteworthy.

At the same time, over the years, ELZABURU has managed more than 4,000 trademarks in the Principality and has actively contributed to leading international publications on industrial property and Andorran trademark law.

Trademark Renewals in Andorra: Why Will 2026 and 2027 Be Key Years?

Thirty years after those initial applications, many of the trademarks registered between 1996 and 1997 are still in force and will be due for renewal between 2026 and 2027.

This aspect has practical implications in terms of the volume of proceedings. Indeed, during the OMPA’s first years of operation, there were very high numbers of applications, representing one of the largest volumes in its entire history. Consequently, it is reasonable to anticipate that during the remainder of 2026 and throughout 2027, there will be a significant increase in renewal proceedings, especially for holders with extensive portfolios.

Therefore, it is advisable to review in advance the status of trademarks that are set to expire within at least the next 18 months and to plan for their renewal appropriately to ensure the continuity of those rights.

Cristina Arroyo, Associate Partner and Director of the International Trademark Practice at Elzaburu.

In Qatar, as in other countries where Sharia law applies, the ban on alcohol applies to both citizens and tourists; therefore, it is not possible to sell alcoholic beverages unless a special permit is obtained.
Alcoholic beverages may be consumed at specific establishments—such as hotels and restaurants that have obtained a license—or, if purchased for personal consumption, only under certain conditions that even affect how the product is transported and the quantity that may be purchased.

To respect the country's customs, as is obvious, it is also not permitted to drink alcohol on the street or be intoxicated.

2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar

As a curious aside, in the context of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar—the first World Cup held in the Middle East, which was expected to mark a certain break from certain stereotypes, prejudices, and clichés—the sale of alcohol also took center stage in the media. As reported by the international press, this issue was the subject of last-minute negotiations between FIFA and Qatari authorities, who initially agreed to allow the sale of beer in restricted areas but then reversed that decision just days before the tournament’s opening.

Change in Trademark Practice in Qatar in February 2026

Well, earlier this year—2026—the country announced a significant change in its trademark practices that directly affects the alcoholic beverages sector. Until now, the aforementioned legal restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol had, in practice, prevented the registration of trademarks for these types of products.

Adoption of the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification

The adoption of the 13th edition of the Nice Classification marks a turning point, as it allows, for the first time, registration in all classes of goods and services—from Class 1 to Class 45—thereby including goods in Classes 32 and 33, which cover alcoholic beverages.

• Class 32: Beers
• Class 33: Wines, Liqueurs, and Alcoholic Beverages

Opportunity for Spanish and European companies

For Spanish and European companies, this presents an opportunity to take proactive steps to protect their trademarks, regardless of other legal, regulatory, and social considerations that will determine what can be eaten and drunk in Qatar and that must continue to be complied with.

Alignment with other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council

This decision also aligns Qatar's position with that of other Gulf Cooperation Council countries, removing administrative barriers, opening a strategic window of opportunity for global brands, and eliminating the need to adapt strategies in order to obtain a certain level of protection.

A significant impact on the Spanish wine and beer industry

Given that our country has one of the largest vineyard areas and is one of the world’s leading wine producers, and given that the brewing industry is also a pillar of the agri-food sector in our economy—and that some of our brands are present in international markets—this news is sure to generate interest. And not only to take proactive steps to protect trademark rights but also to establish monitoring measures against applications filed by third parties.

Cristina Arroyo, Director of the International Brands Division at ELZABURU