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

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

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

More views to represent a static design

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

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

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

Dynamic 3D visualizations and animated designs

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

The planned formats are:

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

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

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

Visual Compromises and Image Correction

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

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

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

Streamlined Nullity Proceedings

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

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

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

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

Proof of Use When Invalidity Is Based on an Earlier Trademark

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

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

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

Electronic Communications and New Procedural Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Starting April 30, 2026, it will be possible to apply for new domain extensions. This process, which has not taken place since 2012, once again brings to the forefront of the debate a decision with significant strategic implications for businesses: operating under their own top-level domain—that is, adopting a .brand instead of relying on generic extensions such as “.com” or country-code extensions such as “.es.”

The application period will remain open until August 12, offering companies the opportunity to take their online presence to the next level.

A context shaped by digital security and trust

The reopening of this process is no coincidence. The steady increase in online risks has highlighted the need to strengthen mechanisms for identifying and protecting trademarks in the digital environment.

In Spain, recent data show a clear trend: cybersecurity incidents continue to rise, with online fraud and phishing being particularly prevalent. In this context, phenomena such as cybersquatting (the registration of domain names by third parties that reproduce or imitate other companies’ trademarks) continue to pose a significant threat to companies in all sectors.

In light of this situation, .brand domains are being proposed as a tool that allows companies to strengthen their digital identity and create a safer environment for users. By operating under its own domain extension, the brand establishes a controlled space where the authenticity of the content is more easily recognizable.

What does it mean to operate under a .brand domain?

Registering a .brand domain represents a significant departure from the traditional domain management model. Although these extensions are compatible with existing ones, they introduce a key difference: the company now has direct control over all domain names created under its own extension.

This means that:

• This eliminates the risk of third parties registering similar domain names with that extension.
• Legal certainty in online trademark management is being strengthened.
• User trust is enhanced by unequivocally identifying the website's corporate origin.

Competitive Advantages of .brand Domains

Beyond protection, .brand domains offer a number of strategic advantages that can have a direct impact on a company's positioning:

Unique digital identity

Having your own domain allows you to build an online presence that is fully aligned with your brand, eliminating ambiguity and strengthening brand recognition.

Greater user confidence

In an environment where credibility is a critical factor, having your own domain makes it easier for users to clearly identify that they are interacting with the legitimate company.

Flexibility for campaigns and projects

.brand domains make it possible to develop more consistent and memorable naming structures for campaigns or projects, thereby increasing their commercial appeal.

Impact on Visibility and Ranking

Although it is not the only factor, consistency and clarity in domain architecture can contribute positively to a brand’s digital positioning strategy and overall visibility.

Is this a solution for all companies?

Despite their advantages, .brand domains do not appear, at this time, to be a universal option. Their adoption depends on one main factor: cost.

The initial investment may be around $220,000, plus estimated annual maintenance costs of about $25,000. This level of investment places this project, in principle, within the realm of large corporations. However, it remains to be seen how these costs will evolve in the future.

Key Challenges in Applying for a .brand Domain

The process of obtaining a .brand domain name involves not only a significant financial investment but also advance strategic planning.

Among the main challenges are:

• Have the trademark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse.
• The TLD (Top-Level Domain) must beidentical to the registered trademark.
• Have the appropriate financial and technical capacity to manage its own domain name registration.

Therefore, rather than an isolated decision, this is an initiative that must be integrated into an overall brand and online presence strategy.

A long-term strategic decision

The launch of the new domain registration process represents a significant opportunity for companies seeking to strengthen their digital presence from a structural perspective.

.brand domains are not simply an alternative to traditional domain extensions, but a tool that allows companies to take greater control over their online identity, reduce risks associated with misuse, and build safer and more recognizable digital environments.

José Ignacio San Martín, Associate Partner in the Trademark Practice Group 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

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.