Since 2005, Grupo Solar de Samaniego S.L. has been the proprietor of the Spanish word mark “Valcavada” for alcoholic beverages in Class 33. Under this mark, Samaniego produces and distributes red wine from its winery in Laguardia (Álava), which has received various international accolades.

Meanwhile, Bodegas Herederos de Perfecto Martínez S.L. has been the proprietor since 2016 of the Spanish word mark “1808 Temperamento natural Valcavada singular vineyard”, intended for alcoholic beverages in Class 33, under which red wine is also marketed from a winery located in Laguardia. The term or place name ‘Valcavada’ identifies a locality in the municipality of Laguardia, where there are vineyards and where several wineries are situated.

Samaniego brought an action against Perfecto Martínez, seeking a declaration that the defendant’s use of the aforementioned trademark constitutes an infringement of the claimant’s rights and that its registration be declared invalid. The claimant also sought an order for the defendant to cease using the trademark and to compensate them for damages caused. Perfecto Martínez contested the claim, arguing that the term ‘Valcavada’ is not the claimant’s invention, but rather the name of a locality in Laguardia where several wineries belonging to the Rioja Alavesa designation of origin are established.

At first instance, the defendant’s trade mark was declared invalid and the claimant’s trade mark rights were found to have been infringed, with no compensation awarded as the damages had not been proven. Perfecto Martínez appealed against this judgment to the Provincial Court, which upheld the appeal and quashed the judgment on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion or association between the disputed trademarks, and that the defendant’s trademark registration did not seek to take advantage of the prestige of the claimant’s trademark.

Samaniego appealed before the Spanish Supreme Court, arguing, amongst other grounds that were dismissed, that there was unfair exploitation of another party’s trade mark. The Court, having concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks of the opposing parties and having rejected the claim that ‘Valcavada’ is a well-known trademark, points out that signs consisting of generic or geographical names do not qualify for trademark registration when they consist exclusively of such terms. However, in cases where such a designation is combined with other signs or terms, it may give rise to a protected trade mark. That said, in such cases, the trade mark proprietor cannot prevent the same generic or geographical name from being incorporated into another composite trade mark, provided there is no likelihood of confusion despite the identity of the generic or geographical name in question.

The Spanish Supreme Court reiterates that the use of geographical place names or toponyms incorporated into trade marks is linked to the right of traders established in a specific geographical area to use the relevant designation and to prevent that designation, when associated with specific goods or services, from being monopolised by a third party through the registration of a trade mark. For all the above reasons, Samaniego’s appeal is dismissed, as it cannot monopolise the place name Valcavada. The disputed term designates a geographical location and is not an invention of the claimant, nor does it result from any intellectual or creative process.

Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) 136/2026 of 3 February 2026