The European Union Trademark Court, based in Alicante, has ordered the closure of a website operated from China that marketed products such as clothing, footwear and accessories using the Camel brand’s camel logo. The website camelstore.com sold garments bearing that symbol without the authorization of the trademark owner, Japan Tobacco. The Court found that this use constitutes an unfair advantage of the trademark’s reputation.
Although the website operated from outside the European Union, the Court declared itself competent, as its activity was directed at European consumers. In other words, it produced effects within the European territory.
The Court held that this case constitutes a clear infringement of a well-known trademark. In this regard, there is no requirement for a risk of direct confusion; rather, an unfair advantage is taken of the trademark’s reputation, its distinctive character is diluted and/or damage is caused to its image. In this case, the use of the camel symbol directly referred to the Camel trademark. Furthermore, it was applied to products that the company does not currently market, which created an improper association in the minds of consumers. The ruling has implications for any company operating in the digital environment, as websites and e-commerce are not outside the scope of European legal regulation. This case reaffirms that well-known trademarks enjoy enhanced protection; therefore, the prestige of a registered trademark cannot be exploited without authorization, even when different products are involved.
The Protection of Community Designs: SAP Alicante 12/2026
The Judgment of 18 February 2026 of the Alicante Provincial Court 12/2026, acting as a European Union Trademark Court, examines a case concerning the infringement of Community designs in the outdoor furniture sector, declaring the existence of an infringement and ordering the cessation of the activity, as well as the withdrawal of the products from the market.
The dispute is as follows: Vondom S.L. (hereinafter, “Vondom”) brought an action against Gaviota Simbac S.L. (hereinafter, “Gaviota”), seeking recognition of its exclusive rights over its designs registered with the EUIPO, claiming that Gaviota is marketing outdoor furniture that copies its designs.
The Court recalls that the decisive criterion for determining whether an infringement exists is whether Gaviota’s products create a different overall impression from Vondom’s designs. The Court specifies that the comparison must be made between the registered design and the allegedly infringing product, in accordance with the case law of the CJEU. However, it adds that the actual products may be used as visual support for the comparison.
The judgment also addresses the impact of fashion trends on the assessment of the design. It states that their existence does not justify reducing the level of protection; fashion evolves and may influence the appearance of the design; however, the Court must assess its impact in each case. Nevertheless, this does not remove the relevance of the elements that make up the overall impression of a design. Consequently, the defendant’s argument that the standard applied in the examination of the overall impression should be lowered because its designs follow market trends is rejected.
It also examines whether lighting constitutes an element that forms part of the design. The Court holds that it will only be relevant if it is an essential part of the design. By contrast, in the present case it is considered to be an accessory to the furniture.
In addition, the Provincial Court highlights that the fact that an expert report is incorrect does not relieve the judge of his obligation; rather, the Court must carry out its own analysis.
