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.

In an increasingly competitive market, where brands seek not only to capture consumers' attention but also to stand out in saturated environments, creativity and originality have become essential strategic elements.

A recent example that illustrates this scenario is the dispute over the “No Ni Ná” trademark, launched by Paz Padilla and her daughter for a fashion line. In this case, the replacement of the letter “I” with a fishbone has raised legal questions that go beyond the design itself: Can a common symbol acquire distinctiveness? What conditions must a trademark meet to be successfully registered?

What does it mean for a trademark to be distinctive?

Distinctiveness is what makes a brand unique and allows consumers to associate a product or service with the company that offers it. When a sign fails to establish that connection, it ceases to fulfill its essential purpose.

Trademark registration authorities evaluate this distinctiveness by considering two key factors:

1. The products or services you wish to protect.
2. The perception of the target audience the brand is aimed at.

If a trademark lacks distinctiveness, it cannot be registered. Among the most common reasons are:

• Descriptiveness: This occurs when the mark directly describes characteristics of the product or service, such as its nature, quality, or origin. Example: using “DULCE” for confectionery products.
• Use of generic terms: words commonly used in an industry, such as “SOFTWARE” for computer programs.
• Common expressions in commerce: terms that have become part of everyday language, such as “BIO” for organic foods.
• Overly generic slogans: Phrases like “THE BEST FOR YOU” do not allow consumers to identify a specific company.
• Functional shapes or those dictated by the nature of the product: In the case of three-dimensional trademarks, shapes that are essential or commonplace—such as the basic outline of a bottle—cannot be registered.
• Designs that are too generic or common: overly simple elements, such as a red circle for electronic products, do not allow one company to stand out from another.

Identifying symbols as a distinguishing feature: an increasingly demanding landscape

Not all components of a trademark need to be equally distinctive. A trademark may include elements that, taken individually, have weak distinctiveness or lack distinctiveness entirely.

The use of recognizable icons as trademarks is common in industries such as fashion. Examples such as the skull used by SCALPERS FASHION S.L. or the puma used by Puma SE demonstrate that symbols can become highly distinctive.

But that popularity has led to stricter registration criteria. In the case of “No Ni Ná, ” fish bones are commonly used as a reference to Cádiz and areas such as Zahara de los Atunes, which makes it difficult to consider it an exclusive mark.

To defend its registration, the company would have to prove that:

• Consumers do not associate the "raspa" with a generic symbol of the industry.
• Or that, after prolonged and continuous use, the design has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness or even renown, as is the case with Longchamp’s horseman on horseback, which is unmistakably recognized by the public.

Copyright Protection: An Important Limit

Just because a sign lacks distinctiveness does not mean it is without legal protection. If the design of the “No Ni Ná” logo is original and unique, it could be protected by copyright.

However, this protection would only prevent the exact copying of the specific design, not the use of generic variations of the motif. Therefore, a lawsuit against a different fish scale design would have little chance of success.

Tips for Creating Original Brands and Avoiding Conflicts

The “No Ni Ná” case demonstrates the importance of investing in distinctive and creative branding from the very beginning. Here are some key recommendations for entrepreneurs and designers:

1. Avoid generic or common terms used in the industry.
2. Opt for invented, arbitrary, or evocative symbols that have no direct connection to the product or service. Some successful examples include Google and Apple in the technology sector.
3. Conduct a preliminary trademark search to avoid conflicts.
4. Seek advice from a professional specializing in intellectual property before launching the brand on the market.

Originality as a Brand Positioning Strategy

The level of distinctiveness required may vary by industry. In highly saturated sectors such as fashion, cosmetics, or food, finding truly distinctive marks is more challenging. Conversely, in technology or emerging sectors, where there is greater creative freedom, it is easier to meet this requirement.

In any case, the more unique, original, and memorable the trademark is, the greater the chances of successfully registering it and establishing it in the market.

Lorena Sánchez, Attorneys and Specialists in the Trademark Department at Elzaburu

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

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

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

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

2. Joseph Lister and Surgical Antisepsis

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

3. Maxwell's Equations: Applied Science

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

4. Alfred Nobel and Nitroglycerin

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

5. The Elevator and Vertical Architecture

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

6. The Railroad as a Driver of Patents

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

7. The Origins of Nestlé

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

8. Alice in Wonderland

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

9. The Transatlantic Telegraph Cable

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

10. The Bessemer Process and Modern Steel

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

Elzaburu: a company born out of the same innovative environment

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

Elisa Prieto, Head of Knowledge Management at Elzaburu

Registering a trademark associated with a musical project has become an essential tool in the industrial property and intellectual property strategies of contemporary artists. Rosalía’s recent application for the European trademark “LUX,” months before the release of her new album, illustrates how trademark law can anticipate market trends and protect the commercial value of the intangible assets associated with artistic creation.

Early Registration and Legal Priority

Filing an application for a European Union trademark before the launch of a cultural or musical product allows the applicant to establish a priority date and obtain a presumption of legal protection against third parties. In the case of “LUX,” the artist filed the application on June 6, 2025, for classes 9, 25, and 41, which include musical recordings, clothing, and entertainment services.

This strategy prevents potential opportunistic registrations by third parties seeking to profit from the commercial value of the mark and facilitates the drafting of licensing agreements ( merchandising, distribution, etc.) with greater legal certainty.

The application is currently under review by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Once this stage is complete, a three-month period will begin during which holders of prior rights may file an opposition on relative grounds. Consequently, an opposition could still be filed if there are similar prior trademarks.

Risks of Not Registering a Trademark in Other Jurisdictions

One of the fundamental principles of trademark law is its territorial nature. This means that the protection granted by a European Union trademark is effective only within that territory.

Failure to register the trademark in relevant jurisdictions may leave the owner vulnerable to unauthorized use or prior registrations by third parties. In this case, Rosalía has also applied for registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, a move consistent with the international significance of her previous Motomami World Tour.

However, at this time, there is no record of an application in China, where releasing the album before registration could have made it easier for a third party to beat them to it. Without a local registration, it would be more difficult to take action against potential infringements or misuse of the “LUX” mark in that market.

The Distinctive Character of “LUX”

One of the key factors in granting a trademark is its distinctiveness. The EUIPO examines applications to rule out generic or descriptive signs in accordance with the absolute grounds for refusal set forth in the EU Trademark Regulation.

Although “LUX” means “light” in Latin and is commonly associated with luxury, this term does not directly describe the protected goods or services (such as clothing, musical recordings, or entertainment services). Therefore, there are no apparent legal obstacles to its registration.

Figurative and Symbolic Trademarks: Specific Characteristics

At the same time, another trademark related to “LUX” is a symbol. These figurative trademarks may also be registered, provided they are not limited to generic shapes and possess sufficient distinctiveness.

Unlike word marks, their distinctiveness is assessed from a visual perspective, based on whether the graphic symbol allows the business or artistic origin of the goods and services offered to be identified.

Disclosure and Transparency in Applications

In the case of European Union trademark applications, it is common for the timeline and information regarding potential oppositions not to be displayed until the application is published. This is because, while the application is under examination, the opposition period has not yet begun, and certain information is accessible only to the owner or the owner’s authorized representative before the Office.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office does not provide for the confidential processing of applications; therefore, this would not constitute a confidentiality strategy. Once the application is published, all essential information would become public.

Trademark Ownership and Relationship with the Record Label

In this case, for the record label to be able to claim a share of the revenue derived from the use of the trademarks, we must rely on what was agreed upon between the parties. In principle, without a formal licensing agreement with the record label, the artist herself will receive the revenue generated by the use of the trademarks registered in her name.

Legal Strategies for Capitalizing on Intangible Assets

When it comes to developing a strategy to capitalize on an album release, various factors come into play, depending on the creativity of the artist or the team. An example of how to leverage intangible assets in this context is the case of Rosalía’s album cover, unveiled at a massive event in Callao. To create the cover, certain rights must be assigned by the collaborators involved—such as the photographer or designer—and these rights are typically owned by the record label, in this case, Columbia Records.

Another way to capitalize on a release—by leveraging intangible assets—is through “listening parties,” a format that originated in the United States and has been used by major artists such as Ye (a.k.a. Kanye West). These types of events serve not only as a promotional tool to generate buzz but also as a unique experience for fans, who can listen to the album for the first time alongside the artist. Rosalía, in particular, has opted for a more intimate format than other artists, thereby creating a more personal connection with her audience and enhancing the experience surrounding the release. This has undoubtedly made it necessary to consider a series of legal measures to protect such activities. For example, formalizing contracts with venues, obtaining public communication licenses, establishing data processing conditions, and managing access. In short, as with almost all music releases, it is the combination of legal measures that makes the difference in determining whether a product will be successful.

Common Mistakes in Intangible Asset Management

The first step in capitalizing on intangible assets to avoid future problems with an album release is to ensure that you have all the necessary rights assignments or licenses for phonographic and publishing exploitation, as well as trademark registrations and rights to other key elements such as artwork, cover designs, and any visual material associated with the release. It is essential to avoid any type of claim for rights infringement, both during the release phase and after the product has been distributed.

A common—and potentially costly—mistake is failing to formalize agreements with producers, performers, and collaborators. It is not uncommon, even today, to see albums released in both physical and digital formats that later lead to claims of copyright or moral rights infringement. These disputes can arise for reasons such as the unauthorized use of samples or rights assignments that were not properly signed. In addition, visual elements—such as the cover art or any other graphic material used in promotion—must be adequately protected to avoid conflicts related to intellectual property.

Lucía Palomino, Attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu, & Jesús Nogués, Attorney in the Media and Entertainment practice group at Elzaburu.

Image: Rosalía's website and EUIPO.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recently rejected the application to register the trademark TEQUIFRESA for alcoholic beverages in Class 33. The decision is based on the fact that the sign applied for evokes the geographical indication (GI) “Tequila,” which is protected by both European regulations and international agreements with Mexico.

This case is a good example of how European regulations protect geographical indications against attempts to register trademarks that might take unfair advantage of their reputation or mislead consumers.

Background of the Case

The applicant, Fraternity Spirits World Inc., filed an application for the word mark TEQUIFRESA in Class 33 to designate: “Alcoholic beverages, except beers.”

In its initial communication dated May 27, 2025, the EUIPO raised an objection pursuant to Article 7(1)(j) of the European Union Trademark Regulation (EUTMR), finding that the trademark evoked the geographical indication (GI) “Tequila.”

The applicant did not file any arguments within the allotted time limit; therefore, the Office upheld the rejection in its decision of August 22, 2025.

Legal Rationale of the EUIPO

Strengthened Protection of the “Tequila” Geographical Indication (GI)

In its decision denying the application, the EUIPO noted that the term “Tequila” enjoys dual protection:

1. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 2024/1143 of April 11, 2024, which regulates geographical indications for spirits in the European Union.
2. Pursuant to the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the Mutual Recognition and Protection of Designations in the Spirits Sector (OJEU L 152, June 11, 1997).

Definition of the term “protected”

The EUIPO determined that the trademark application for “TEQUIFRESA” includes the element “TEQUI,” which evokes the term “Tequila.” The addition of the term “FRESA” would not eliminate that association.

Furthermore, with regard to the goods applied for in Class 33 (“Alcoholic beverages, except beers”), the EUIPO considers that this description includes“agave-based spirits,” which do not have the origin indicated by the geographical indication referred to in the trademark for which protection is sought.

Consequences of the resolution

The EUIPO, pursuant to Article 7(1)(j) of the EUTM Regulation, rejected the trademark application for TEQUIFRESA.

In accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the RMUE, the applicant has the right to file an appeal within two months of notification and will then have an additional two months to present the arguments they deem relevant.

Significance of the Decision for Trademark Owners and Applicants

This case highlights several key aspects that trademark applicants should consider when planning their trademark strategy in the European Union.

The ruling confirms that geographical indications enjoy enhanced protection that not only prevents the registration of an identical term but also any reference—even partial—such as the inclusion of the element “TEQUI” in the trademark application, which is capable of leading consumers to associate it with the geographical indication “Tequila” even when accompanied by other elements or names.

Furthermore, this case underscores the need to conduct thorough preliminary searches not only for trademarks but also for geographical indications, thereby reinforcing the importance of developing robust trademark strategies that are aligned with current regulations.

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