The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recently denied Tesla's application to register the "ROBOTAXI " trademark for vehicles and services related to autonomous transportation.

The term is associated with the company's autonomous mobility project, which plans to deploy a network of driverless vehicles for passenger transportation. However, the Office has determined that the "Robotaxi" mark is descriptive of the goods and services for which registration was sought.

This decision is particularly relevant in a context where emerging technological concepts (such as autonomous driving) give rise to new terms that are quickly incorporated into everyday language. In such cases, the line between a term that can be registered as a trademark and a purely descriptive term can be decisive for the protection of intellectual property assets.

Background of the Case

To understand the EUIPO's decision, we must take the following applications into account:

1. Robotaxi Ltd filed EU trademark application No. 013813167 for “ROBOTAXI” (March 11, 2015) to designate: Car rental; Vehicle rental; Transportation by rental car; Car rental; Taxi services; Passenger transportation; Taxi services; Provision of rental vehicles for passenger transportation. This trademark was granted on October 21, 2015, without opposition.
2. Subsequently, Monsieur ZOUBIER HARBAOUI filed an application for French trademark No. 716940, “ROBOTAXI” ( on December 30, 2020), for classes 9, 12, 39, and 42. This registration was granted on June 2, 2021.
3. Testa, Inc. recently filed for EU trademark No. 019171190, “ROBOTAXI,” covering goods in Class 12 (Land vehicles; electric vehicles, namely automobiles; automobiles; and structural parts therefor) and services in Class 39 (Leasing of motor vehicles; transportation and storage of automobiles; transportation of passengers and goods; coordinating travel arrangements for individuals and groups, namely, arranging time-based ridesharing services for individuals and groups; vehicle rental services; vehicle sharing services, namely, arranging and coordinating the temporary use of vehicles; transportation and delivery services, namely, monitoring, managing, and tracking the transportation of persons and the delivery of goods and packages; conveyance rental and sharing services, namely, arranging and coordinating peer-to-peer vehicle sharing and rental services).

Decision

In this case, the EUIPO has rejected the application because it considers the sign “ROBOTAXI” to be descriptive of the goods and services claimed. Specifically, it considers that the relevant public will perceive it as a“taxi driven by a robot; an automatic, unmanned vehicle intended for personal transportation.”

Testa, Inc. appears to have argued in its defense that the Office has accepted very similar marks—some of which were even filed by the same applicant—and that the Office must ensure that comparable cases are decided in a comparable manner, unless an objective and factual distinction justifies a different outcome.

However, the EUIPO notes that “decisions regarding the registration of a sign as a European Union trademark (…) are made in the exercise of defined powers and are not a matter of discretion.” Consequently, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trademark must be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EU Trademark Regulation and not based on the Office’s prior practice.

Also keep in mind that market practices, languages, and examination practices evolve over time, and some of the trademarks cited were accepted because, at the time of their application, they were considered registrable, even though that is no longer the case today.

Conclusion

The EUIPO has rejected the application for the ROBOTAXI trademark on the grounds that it is descriptive, but it should be noted that this is not inconsistent with previous decisions, since:

1. It is not bound by previous decisions, whether by the EUIPO itself or by other offices (such as the French one).
2. The criteria used in previous applications do not necessarily align with the criteria currently applied, since language usage changes over time.

Elzaburu and Trademark Consulting

Protecting distinctive marks in emerging technology sectors requires a careful analysis of the requirements for registrability, particularly with regard to distinctiveness and the risk that a term might be considered descriptive of the goods or services it identifies.

At Elzaburu, we advise domestic and international companies on the development of trademark registration strategies, the monitoring of trademark portfolios, and the defense of their rights before trademark offices and courts.

Marta Rodríguez, Associate Partner in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu.

April marks World Intellectual Property Day on the calendar, which this year focuses on sports as a driver of innovation and economic development. In this context, basketball has established itself as a clear example of how a sport can transcend competition to become an ecosystem of intangible assets.

To explore this issue further, we spoke with Blanca Palacín, a trademark attorney at Elzaburu, about the role that intellectual property plays in this industry.

How does basketball contribute to the development and protection of intellectual property in sports?

Basketball is playing an important role in the development and protection of intellectual property in the sports world, serving as a key example of how intellectual property rights are used to protect and commercialize intangible assets.

The NBA was a pioneer in promoting an economic model based on the exploitation of audiovisual rights, brand protection, and merchandising licenses, which is managed on a global scale and generates significant revenue.

This practice has encouraged other sports leagues to adopt similar approaches, creating complex legal structures to protect content and brands internationally, ensuring the exclusivity of rights, and preventing their unauthorized use (such as illegal streaming or the sale of counterfeit products).

In short, basketball contributes to the development of intellectual property by creating high-value brands (teams, leagues, players, etc.), relying on audiovisual rights for its funding, and requiring legal protection to prevent the misuse of distinctive marks and content.

From a legal standpoint, which intangible assets are the most valuable in basketball?

Currently, the most valuable assets in the basketball industry are primarily broadcasting rights, brands, players' image rights, and sports analytics and data technology.

Audiovisual Rights

Broadcasting rights for games and related content are a crucial source of revenue, protected by copyright and licensing agreements.

Brands

Leagues, federations, teams, and players register trademarks to protect their image and generate revenue, either on their own behalf or through licensing. The commercialization of sports trademarks is one of the industry’s main sources of revenue. Some examples of trademarks registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) include: Euroleague, Liga U, VALENCIA BASKET, and Santi Aldama.

In addition, sponsorship by other brands plays a crucial role in the economic ecosystem of sports, helping to enhance the brand image of both the sponsors and the league, team, or player in question. Endesa’s sponsorship of the ACB and the Women’s League is a clear example of how a brand can link its image to a sports league.

Image Rights

The commercial use of players' images is a key asset in every sport, including basketball. It allows for control over the commercial use of their names, faces, and other identifying features.

Technology

Data protection and technology in basketball have become increasingly important in recent years due to the growing use of big data, advanced technologies, and performance analytics. These tools not only help improve the game and the fan experience but also create valuable assets that require adequate legal protection to prevent unauthorized use, information theft, and unlawful exploitation. Their use is primarily governed by licensing agreements, copyright laws, and personal data protection regulations.

Why do basketball players register their names or logos as trademarks?

Registering players' names, celebrations, or iconic gestures as trademarks grants them, on the one hand, an exclusive right to use them and , on the other hand, allows them to prevent unauthorized use by third parties.

This exclusive right not only protects their commercial identity but also gives them control over its commercial exploitation, thereby ensuring a steady stream of income that extends beyond their athletic careers, even after they retire.

Players such as the Gasol brothers and Santi Aldama have established distinctive traits linked to their identity, solidifying their legacy both on and off the court.

Is basketball an intellectual property industry as well as a sport?

Without a doubt, basketball has become a true intellectual property industry, as its economic value depends largely on intangible assets such as trademarks and audiovisual rights. The exploitation of these rights across various platforms, video games, and merchandise demonstrates that basketball transcends the realm of sports to become a global business based on the creation and management of intellectual property.

Conclusion: From the Parquet to the Intangible

Basketball reflects how the sport has gradually incorporated an economic dimension that is increasingly linked to intangible assets. Beyond competition, the creation, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property rights are now an essential part of the sport’s development and sustainability.

In this environment, the proper legal management of trademarks, audiovisual rights, technology, and image rights is key to maximizing the economic and reputational value of clubs, leagues, and athletes. As in other innovation-intensive sectors, intellectual property not only protects but also shapes the business model.

At Elzaburu, we assist companies, sports organizations, and professionals in identifying, protecting, and strategically leveraging their intangible assets, tailoring each strategy to an increasingly global and competitive environment.

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.

Background of the Trademark Expiration Case

Trademarks are valid for ten years and may be renewed indefinitely. However, the owner must make effective use of them in the marketplace. Failure to use a trademark for five consecutive years may result in its expiration; a request for expiration must be filed with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM).

In this context, the Provincial Court of Madrid (APM) recently confirmed the partial lapse due to nonuse of several trademarks belonging to the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE).

The ruling is significant because it addresses key issues in trademark law, such as standing to request revocation and the scope of the requirement for actual use of the registered mark.

The trademark dispute between OLIMPO and the COE's OLIMPIADA trademarks

The proceedings stem from the application filed with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) by the company Miguel Bellido to register the OLIMPO trademark.

The COE opposed this request, citing trademarks it owned that included the term " OLIMPIADA."

In the face of this opposition, Miguel Bellido not only defended his trademark application but also filed several parallel applications to have the COE’s trademarks declared invalid on the grounds of non-use.

After reviewing the documentation provided, the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) declared those trademarks to have expired for all goods and services, except for those related to “education, training, and sports activities” (Class 41).

The COE appealed this decision, but the Provincial Court of Madrid dismissed the appeal and upheld the trademark’s expiration, except for the services mentioned.

Who Can File a Petition to Cancel a Trademark for Nonuse

One of the COE's main arguments was to challenge Miguel Bellido's standing to request the expiration of his trademarks.

The Spanish Olympic Committee maintained that the company had not suffered any harm, since the OEPM ultimately granted the OLIMPO trademark despite the opposition filed.

However, the Provincial Court adopts a broad interpretation of the concept of “aggrieved party” in proceedings for forfeiture due to lack of use.

The court considers that there is a public interest in ensuring that only trademarks that are actually used remain registered; therefore, the requirement regarding harm set forth in Article 58.1 of the Trademark Law must be interpreted flexibly.

Consequently, it holds that, in principle, it is sufficient for the applicant to consider himself or herself affected by the contested trademark—a circumstance that is presumed by the very filing of the application—unless there are exceptional cases of abuse.

Furthermore, the Court notes that the fact that the COE’s opposition was unsuccessful and that the OLIMPO trademark was ultimately registered does not retroactively eliminate the standing that the applicant had when it filed the action for revocation.

Proof of the trademark's actual use in the marketplace

Another important aspect of the ruling concerns proof of trademark use.

The documentation provided by the COE only demonstrated the use of its trademarks in connection with education, training, and sports activities, but not with respect to the other goods and services included in its registrations.

The evidence provided included posts on its website, Google search results, and references to the Olympic Games, as well as information regarding events such as the Paris Games.

However, the Provincial Court considers that these elements do not sufficiently prove genuine use of the trademark in the course of trade for the goods and services for which the trademark was declared expired.

Reputation or legal recognition does not replace the use of the trademark

The ruling also addresses another argument raised by the COE: its institutional standing and the prestige associated with the Olympic movement.

The Court acknowledges that sports legislation may grant the COE exclusive rights to certain marks.

However, the court notes that if an entity decides to register such signs as trademarks, it must comply with the obligations under the trademark system, including actual use in connection with the protected goods and services.

In this regard, the fact that a trademark is well-known in certain sectors or that an official body has rights recognized by other laws does not exempt it from complying with the requirements of trademark law.

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the COE has other legal avenues available to prevent the registration of certain marks by third parties, such as those provided for in Article 5.1.f) of the Trademark Law, as it holds exclusive rights recognized by applicable law.

However, you cannot obtain additional protection through the trademark system if you do not meet the specific requirements imposed by that system on the trademark owner in order to maintain the trademark as such.

Standing to Sue in Trademark Expiration Cases and Its Broad Interpretation

According to the ruling, standing to file a claim for forfeiture due to lack of use must be interpreted broadly.

The concept of “aggrieved party” should not unduly restrict access to this remedy. Exclusion should be limited to exceptional cases involving bad faith or abuse of rights—concepts that, according to European case law, must be interpreted narrowly.

Furthermore, standing is not limited solely to identical or similar goods or services that could prevent the registration of a later trademark.

Had that been the case, Miguel Bellido would not have been entitled to request the cancellation of the COE’s trademarks with respect to the wide range of goods and services protected by them.

Public Interest in Purifying the Trademark Register

Thus, this case underscores that in proceedings for cancellation due to nonuse, there is not only a private interest but also a public interest in purging the trademark register.

Furthermore, it is important not to forget that in these cases, European Union law must be interpreted uniformly. In this regard, it should be noted that in this context, the term “aggrieved party” is not used; rather, standing to sue is held by those who have legal capacity.

Jesús Gómez Montero, Honorary Partner at ELZABURU.

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

The Libyan Trademark Office has implemented, effective immediately, a single, mandatory 10-year renewal period for all trademarks registered in the country.

This decision is based on Article 1257 of the current Trademark Law and eliminates the option—which had been permitted in practice until now—to pay the renewal fee for shorter periods.

Effective immediately, all renewals must cover the full ten-year period; it is not possible to make installment or phased payments.

The official renewal fee is 20,000 USD per trademark and class, which makes maintaining trademark rights in Libya a particularly significant financial burden for trademark owners.

End of the Installment Payment System for Trademark Renewals in Libya

This change has significant implications. Until now, it was permitted to pay the fees for shorter periods (for example, on an annual basis until the ten-year period was completed), which allowed for more flexible budget management. The Office has expressly clarified that this system is no longer permissible and that the fee must be paid in a single installment for the entire ten-year period.

Recommendations for Trademark Holders in Libya

This new regime calls for a careful review of trademark maintenance strategies in the country. In particular, it is advisable to pay special attention to:

• the maturities scheduled for 2026, and
• those cases in which fees have been paid for periods of less than ten years.

From a strategic perspective, we recommend that stakeholders with interests in Libya analyze the economic impact of this measure in advance and, if necessary, adjust their budget planning for the protection of industrial property in the country.

An early assessment will help prevent unforeseen circumstances and ensure that rights are upheld under appropriate conditions.

At ELZABURU, we have a team with extensive experience in managing brands abroad, ready to answer any questions and provide guidance on the practical implications of this regulatory change in each specific case.

Cristina Arroyo, Director oftheInternationalBrands Divisionat ELZABURU.

Registering proper names as trademarks is becoming increasingly common when there is clear public recognition or potential for future commercial use.

Victoria Beckham's registration of the names of the Beckhams' children as trademarks highlights the tensions between the right to a name and trademark law, as well as the legal limits of such strategies.

Based on this case, we spoke with Cristina Velasco, a Senior Associate in the Trademark practice at Elzaburu, about the legal treatment of personal names as trademarks, the scope of trademark protection, and the legal remedies available in the event of a dispute.

Should a proper noun be treated the same as any other trademark?

A personal name cannot be equated with a trademark. While a trademark is a distinctive sign intended to identify a company’s products or services in the marketplace as distinct from those of its competitors, a name is an attribute of personality whose function is to identify a natural person in legal transactions and within society. Consequently, a trademark serves a commercial purpose, unlike a personal name, which serves a strictly identificatory purpose.

In the case of the Beckhams, since this is a European Union trademark, European regulations apply, as well as the national regulations of the member states. The United Kingdom (where the family resides), following its withdrawal from the EU through Brexit, is no longer part of that regulatory framework. Therefore, any protection of the family name against a European Union trademark would have to be provided through the domestic laws of one or more member states. In the case of Spain, such protection is expressly provided for in Articles 9.1.a) and 9.1.b) of Law 17/2001, of December 7, on Trademarks, which prohibit the registration of signs that reproduce or imitate a person’s civil name without proper authorization.

Can the legal owner commercially exploit the trademark without the child's consent once the child reaches the age of majority?

If a trademark consisting of a child’s name has been registered without the child’s express consent and the child has not acquiesced to its use for an uninterrupted period of five years within the European Union, the child may validly request its cancellation before the EUIPO, in accordance with Article 60(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 60(3), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

However, if the child had not given consent but had tolerated the use of the trademark for certain goods (for example, clothing in Class 25) for five consecutive years, then it would be more difficult to seek cancellation for those goods, since the child would have to prove that the trademark application was filed in bad faith.

Finally, it should be noted that trademark law is limited by the principle of specialty; therefore, licenses may only be granted for the goods or services for which the trademark is actually protected. Consequently, if the trademark is not registered for certain categories of goods or services, it would not be possible to license its use in connection with those goods or services.

Is it better to negotiate a transfer or to challenge the registration?

It will all depend on the specific case and, in particular, on whether the child gave express consent at the time of registration or tacit consent, which could be inferred when the trademark has been used continuously for more than five years for certain products, with the child’s knowledge and without any objection on the child’s part during that period.

In fact, a request for the trademark’s cancellation may be filed if more than five years have elapsed since its registration without it having been used for all or part of the goods or services for which it was granted in the relevant territory (in this case, the European Union).

What is the difference between “protecting” a child’s name and registering it as a trademark?

From the moment a name is registered as a trademark, the existence of a commercial interest is presumed, since, as we have indicated, the purpose of a trademark is its use in the course of trade to distinguish a company’s goods or services from those of others. If there is no commercial purpose, it makes no sense to apply for trademark protection since, five years after registration, the trademark becomes vulnerable due to lack of use, and any third party could request its cancellation.

Cases like these illustrate how the strategic management of intangible assets—such as a company’s name, image, and brand—requires a thorough preliminary legal analysis aimed not only at protecting against third parties but also at preventing future conflicts.

Intellectual property (IP) is not just a legal tool for protecting intangible assets: it is a structural economic driver for Europe. The latest joint report by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office confirms that IP-intensive sectors account for a significant portion of the continent’s wealth creation, skilled employment, exports, and technological investment.

The study analyzes the 2021–2023 period and identifies 361 industries that are intensive in intellectual property rights, accounting for nearly 48% of the EU’s GDP, more than 30% of employment, and nearly 80% of European foreign trade. In addition, these industries attract more than 88% of private equity and venture capital investments in the EU directed toward IP-intensive startups.

These data not only provide macroeconomic evidence. They also offer a strategic conclusion for businesses: protecting innovation directly translates into competitiveness, financing, and growth.

Below, we analyze the report’s main findings and their practical implications for technology, industrial, and creative companies.

What are intellectual property-intensive industries?

Industries are considered IP-intensive if they have a higher-than-average number of patents, trademarks, designs, or other intellectual property rights per employee compared to other industries that use intellectual property rights.

In simple terms:

An industry is considered intellectual property-intensive in the EU if, for at least one of the intellectual property rights under consideration, the number of such rights per employee exceeds the average for all EU industries that use that same intellectual property right.

These industries range from pharmaceuticals and electronics to software, fashion, food products with geographical indications, and creative services.

The report's premise is clear: when IP is used systematically, its economic impact is multiplied.

Key figures illustrating the economic impact of IP

The study provides compelling indicators regarding IP-intensive industries:

• They accounted for 30.6% of total employment in the EU (more than 65 million workers).
• 47.9% of European GDP was generated by these industries (7.7 trillion euros).
• 76.4% of imports and 78.3% of exports, generating a trade surplus of 108,000 million euros, which helps keep the EU's overall foreign trade in balance.
• A wage premium of 40.9%, significantly higher than in other non-IP-intensive sectors.
• 88% of venture capital and private equity investment went to startups operating in IP-intensive sectors.

These figures demonstrate a direct correlation between the protection of intellectual property and value creation. These are not marginal sectors or technological niches, but rather the backbone of the European economy.

Patents, Trademarks, Designs, and Copyright: How Each Right Contributes

The financial contribution varies depending on the type of right involved. The report breaks down the data by sector. Below, in addition to companies specializing in the leasing of intellectual property, are some examples by type of industrial property right.

Patent-intensive industries

• Manufacturing of hand-held power tools.
• Manufacturing of telecommunications equipment.
• Manufacturing of household appliances.
• Research and experimental development in biotechnology.
• Further experimental research and development in the natural and technical sciences.

Brand-intensive industries

• Manufacture of other transport equipment (n.e.c., not elsewhere classified), such as handcarts
• Production of other non-distilled beverages resulting from fermentation, such as vermouth.
• Collective Investment Schemes, Funds, and Similar Financial Institutions
• Activities of Holding Companies
• Crude Oil Extraction
• Research and experimental development in biotechnology.

Industries that rely heavily on industrial design

• Manufacture of other transportation equipment (n.e.c.), such as handcarts; wholesale trade in furniture, carpets, and lighting fixtures.
• Manufacturing of electric lighting equipment.
• Manufacture of jewelry and similar items.
• Wholesale trade intermediation activities in furniture, household goods, and hardware

Copyright-intensive industries

• Printing, prepress, and media preparation.
• Playback of recorded media.
• Retail sale of books, newspapers, and stationery.
• Retail sales of music and video recordings.
• Video games.

Industries that rely heavily on Geographical Indications

• Dairy Products
• Spirits
• Wine
• Beer

Crop-intensive industries

• Wholesale trade in flowers and plants.
• Research and experimental development in biotechnology.
• Wholesale trade in grains, raw tobacco, seeds, and animal feed.
• Other research and experimental developments in the natural and technical sciences.

Intellectual Property and Quality Employment

One of the most significant findings of the report is the wage premium.

Workers in IP-intensive sectors earn, on average, 40.9% more than those in non-IP-intensive sectors.

This fact has clear implications:

• higher professional qualifications
• more stable jobs
• increased productivity
• more investment in talent

IP not only generates business wealth, but also higher-quality, more specialized jobs.

Exports and Global Value Chains

Sectors that rely heavily on intellectual property rights are significantly more international.

According to the report:

• Three out of every four euros exported by the EU come from these sectors
• generate a trade surplus
• are more integrated into global value chains

This is because protected innovation facilitates:

• technological differentiation
• barriers to entry
• international licenses
• scalability of business models

IP as a Signal to Investors: Venture Capital and Startups

One of the most innovative sections of the study analyzes the relationship between PI intensity and business funding.

The conclusion is clear: investors view intellectual property as a sign of quality and growth potential.

More than 88% of European venture capital and private equity investment goes to startups in IP-intensive sectors.

The reasons are clear:

• lower risk of copying
• greater market exclusivity
• transferable or licensable assets
• Highest valuation in investment rounds
• protection against global competitors

For tech, deep tech, or biotech startups, having a solid patent and trademark strategy can be crucial for securing funding.

Practical Implications for Innovative Companies

Beyond the macroeconomic figures, the report's message is practical:
Intellectual property must be integrated into business strategy from the very beginning.

Some key recommendations:

1. Set up protection before climbing

Registering patents, trademarks, or designs before expanding into new markets helps avoid risks and strengthens one's negotiating position.

2. Build a cohesive portfolio

It is not a matter of accumulating rights, but rather of aligning them through a protection strategy that includes:

• technology
• markets
• business model
• international strategy

3. Using IP as a financial asset

Rights may:

• attract investment
• issue licenses
• allow joint ventures
• improve ratings

4. Scope of Protection

European companies compete globally. Protection must cover the main target markets.

5. Manage IP Strategically

IP is not an administrative procedure, but a tool for gaining a competitive advantage.

Intellectual Property as a Driver of European Competitiveness

The report by the EUIPO and the EPO confirms what business practice has been demonstrating for years: the knowledge economy is built on protected intangible assets.

Nearly half of Europe's GDP depends on sectors where patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights are essential. These industries generate more skilled jobs, pay higher wages, export more, and attract greater investment.

For companies, the conclusion is clear: protecting innovation is not just a legal issue, but a strategic decision for growth.

At Elzaburu, we support technology, industrial, and creative companies in protecting, managing, and maximizing the value of their intangible assets, helping them transform intellectual property into a sustainable competitive advantage.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an intellectual property-intensive industry?

It is a company that registers more patents, trademarks, designs, or other intellectual property rights per employee than the average, indicating that its operations rely heavily on protected innovation.

How much do these industries contribute to the European economy?

They account for about 48% of GDP and more than 30% of total employment in the European Union.

Why does IP attract investment?

Because it reduces competitive risk, protects exclusivity, and increases company valuations, which makes it attractive to venture capital funds.

Which sectors rely most on intellectual property?

Pharmaceuticals, technology, software, fashion, automotive, food products with geographical indications, and creative services, among others.

When should a company protect its innovation?

As soon as possible, preferably before launching products or seeking financing. Depending on the nature of the registration, launching a product may result in the loss of the novelty requirement, making it impossible to obtain subsequent protection—for example, through a patent.

David Hidalgo, Associate and European Patent Attorney in the Patent Department at Elzaburu.

Case Background and Trademark Application

On July 26, 2023, the German company KCT GMBH & CO KG filed an application to register the trademark shown below to distinguish a specific type of window; the trademark was classified asa motion mark.

The following clarification was included in the trademark description:“When opened, the window sash moves downward and outward relative to the fixed frame. The window sash slides downward along the fixed frame. In addition, a black spacer is visible on both sides of the movable window frame.”

The trademark application was rejected. The subsequent appeal was dismissed by a decision dated October 28, 2024 (R 740/2024-2). The Board of Appeal found that the trademark in question consisted exclusively of a specific feature necessary to achieve the technical result intended by the product in question; that is, to allow light and air to enter an enclosed space by opening and closing the window [Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EUTMR 2017/1001]. It also found that the mark lacked distinctiveness [Article 7(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001].

The General Court of the European Union (hereinafter “GC”), by judgment of January 14, 2026 (T-9/25) dismisses the action and confirms that the trademark applied for falls under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 (technical effect), without addressing the issue of lack of distinctiveness.

The essential characteristics of the mark, as described by KCT in its arguments, are as follows: a) the movement of the inner rectangular white frame within the outer rectangular frame; b) the appearance and disappearance of the black dividers between the frames during that movement; c) the change in color at the top and bottom of the inner frame during that movement.

In KCT’s view, the characteristics of the mark, once examined and analyzed individually and collectively, lead to the conclusion that the “moving window” does not consist exclusively of a shape or other specific feature of the product intended to achieve a technical result. Furthermore, it is argued that the movement itself differs from what is commonly known in the industry and that there are other alternatives for achieving the result; it is also argued that the color change that occurs is decorative and, as such, constitutes an essential element.

Applicable Legal Framework

The General Court begins by setting forth the principles underlying the prohibition in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, based on the consideration that its purpose is to prevent the use of a trademark to monopolize technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product that would be protected by other forms of industrial property with limited-term protection (judgment of September 18, 2014, Hauck, C-205/13, EU:C:2014:2233, paragraph 19).

The first step in assessing the prohibition set forth in Article 7.1(2)(ii) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 201771001 may, depending on the sign in question, be based on the overall impression that the sign creates visually or on the identification of its essential characteristics (Judgment of April 23, 2020, Gömböc, C-237/19, EU:C:2020:296, para. 29).

Once this preliminary examination has been conducted, it must be determined whether all the features are essential to fulfilling a technical function, since this prohibition does not apply if a non-functional element—such as an ornamental or fanciful element—plays an important role (judgment of September 14, 2010, Lego Juris v. OHIM, C-48/09 P, EU:C:2010:516, paragraph 72).

Finally, the analysis of technical features must be based on objective and reliable information, such as that contained in the trademark registration application or other data derived from the existence of other industrial property rights, research, expert opinions, scientific publications, etc. (Judgment of April 23, 2020, Gömböc, C-237/19, EU:C:2020:296, paragraph 34).

Assessment by the General Court

The General Court confirms that the mark contains essential characteristics that serve a technical function. The fundamental characteristic of the mark is a sequence of movements consisting of opening and closing a window. This movement involves the opening and closing mechanisms attached to the inner frame, which do not play an independent role in relation to the sequence of movements necessary to achieve the intended technical result.

The function of the spacers is purely technical, as they are an important component that helps stabilize and reinforce the window and support the window sash as it moves forward.

The TG’s first conclusion is that all the essential characteristics of the trademark applied for—that is, the opening and closing motion of the window, including the movement of the dividers—are necessary to achieve the technical result of the product that the trademark is intended to distinguish; therefore, it falls under Article 7.1(e)(ii) of the EUTM Regulation 2017/1001.

The sign incorporates other elements that the TG does not consider essential, such as the color change that occurs when the window is opened or closed—which can only be perceived as a shadow that appears and disappears as the window opens and closes. This change represents merely the normal interplay of light and shadow on a moving three-dimensional object and is not particularly striking; it is considered minor. This characteristic serves to refute another argument based on the possible ornamental nature of this aspect, which would have no bearing on the matter since it is not relevant.

Interestingly, the “Common Practice on New Types of Trademarks: Examination of Formal Requirements and Grounds for Refusal” (CP11) acknowledges that motion trademarks are not limited to signs that depict movement, but may also consist of elements that show a change in the position of the elements, such as a change in color. However, the TG clarifies that the assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis, and the fact that, a priori, a change in color may constitute an essential element of a motion mark does not mean that, in all cases, such a change constitutes an essential element—which is precisely what occurs in the case at hand.

Likewise, the argument that there are alternative technical solutions for opening and closing windows—which is the functionality of the disputed mark—is also unacceptable. As stated above, the fact that such alternatives exist does not mean that the prohibition does not apply, since their existence does not imply that other operators may use the technical solution embodied in the disputed mark.

Indeed, if a trademark with such a characteristic is granted, even if alternatives exist, competitors could be prohibited from using goods with an identical or similar characteristic [judgments of September 14, 2010, Lego Juris v. OHIM, C-48/09 P, EU:C:2010:516, paragraphs 53–56, and of January 31, 2018, Novartis v. EUIPO – SK Chemicals (Representation of a transdermal patch), T-44/16, EU:T:2018:48, paragraph 56].

Therefore, based on all these criteria, the General Court concludes that the trademark in question infringes Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001, without assessing its distinctiveness. To that end, it reiterates the principle that, in order to refuse a European Union trademark, it is sufficient that it infringes any one of the prohibitions set forth in Article 7(1) of the EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001.

Furthermore, it should be noted that an appeal may be filed with the Court of Justice against this judgment within two months of the date of its notification.

Jesús Gómez Montero

Former Partner ELZABURU

IP Academic Advisor (Trademarks)

The recent decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to declare the European Union collective trademark “JABUGO”—owned by the Asociación Auténtico Jabugo—null and void, at the request of the Regulatory Council of the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Jabugo,” has reignited the debate over the boundaries between trademark law and geographical indications.

The ruling provides a significant opportunity to analyze how the distinctiveness requirements are applied in the context of collective trademarks, particularly when such trademarks incorporate geographic names that are widely recognized by the public.

Why the EUIPO Considers That “Jabugo” Cannot Be a Valid Collective Mark

Article 7(1)(c) of the European Union Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting exclusively of signs or indications that may serve, in trade, to designate, among other things, the geographical origin of the goods or services.

However, in the specific context of collective marks, Article 74(2) of the EUTM Regulation establishes an exception: signs that may serve to indicate the geographical origin of goods may constitute collective marks. This provision is known as the geographical exception.

However, this exception does not exempt collective marks from compliance with the other absolute grounds for refusal set forth in Article 7(1) of the EUTM Regulation. Therefore, the exception under Article 74(2) of the EUTM Regulation applies only to those collective marks that are distinctive.

In the decision under review, the Cancellation Division concludes that, as of the filing date of the contested trademark, the term “Jabugo” was recognized as a municipality in the province of Huelva where high-quality hams and related products are produced. Consequently, Spanish consumers will perceive the sign as a direct reference to the geographic origin of the products for which the collective mark was registered, and the mark is declared invalid for lacking sufficient distinctiveness.

What does it mean for “Jabugo” to be considered a descriptive term?

The Cancellation Division concludes that the contested trademark, although descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods, could be covered by the exception set forth in Article 74(2) of the EUTMR. However, that geographical exception does not exempt it from meeting the distinctiveness requirement set forth in Article 7(1)(b) of the EUTMR with respect to all the contested goods.

The direct consequence of this finding is that the Auténtico Jabugo Association cannot claim exclusive rights to the term “JABUGO” under European Union trademark law.

What evidence was required to prove distinctiveness acquired through use?

To establish that the term “Jabugo” had acquired distinctive character through use, the Asociación Auténtico Jabugo should have demonstrated that the relevant public in the European Union perceives the term “Jabugo” as an indicator of the collective commercial origin associated with its members.

This type of accreditation requires solid evidence, including, but not limited to:

• Perception surveys conducted in several Member States.
• Extensive and detailed data on sales, advertising, and commercial presence that demonstrate the use of the term as a trademark.
• Information regarding the brand's market share.
• Evidence regarding the intensity, geographic scope, and duration of the sign's use.
• Evidence of the proportion of the relevant public that identifies the products as coming from a specific company based on the brand.

The ruling notes that the statements provided by the Chambers of Commerce refer to the terms “name,” “reference,” or “product” when mentioning “Jamón de Jabugo,” but do not establish that “Jabugo,” on its own, is perceived as a trademark that identifies the hams produced by the members of the association in question.

Practical Consequences of the Nullification for the Auténtico Jabugo Association and the Industry

The immediate consequence of the declaration of invalidity is that the Auténtico Jabugo Association cannot claim exclusive rights to or monopolize the term “JABUGO” through a collective trademark.

Furthermore, only ham producers who meet the requirements established by the “Jabugo” Protected Designation of Origin may use that term. Consequently, companies that belong to the Auténtico Jabugo Association but do not meet the PDO requirements may not use the term “JABUGO” to refer to their products.

Relationship Between the Canceled Trademark and the “Jabugo” PDO

In practice, the invalidated collective trademark and the PDO will not coexist. With the trademark registration now void, the legitimate use of the term “Jabugo” is exclusively tied to compliance with the requirements of the Protected Designation of Origin.

Thus, if any of the companies belonging to the Auténtico Jabugo Association fails to meet the PDO requirements, it will not be allowed to use the term “JABUGO” to refer to hams.

Future Scenarios: Resources, New Entries, and Control Over the Use of the Term

The decision of the Cancellation Division may be appealed to the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO until January 19, 2026. If the appeal is denied, a further appeal may be filed with the General Court of the European Union.

A new EU trademark application consisting of the term “JABUGO” and covering “hams” would be opposed on the same grounds on which the “JABUGO” registration was canceled (lack of distinctiveness). Article 7(1)(j) of the EU Trademark Regulation might also apply, under which the registration of trademarks that include designations of origin will be refused provided that certain conditions are met.

Once the decision becomes final, the next step for the Regulatory Council will be to ensure that all uses of the term “JABUGO” comply with the PDO, since members of the Auténtico Jabugo Association who do not meet its requirements will not be able to rely on the collective mark to use that term.

Elzaburu has extensive experience in industrial and intellectual property, advising companies and associations on the registration, protection, and defense of trademarks, designations of origin, and other intangible assets, with a rigorous and up-to-date approach to the law.

Marta Rodríguez, Senior Associate in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu.