This order rules on the admissibility of the injunctive relief granted at the request of Houdini Heritage KFT, aimed at protecting the rights arising from its ‘Houdini’ trademark registration. The previous order required the defendants, Letsgo Entertainment S.L., Circus Espectacular S.L. and Beon Entertainment S.L., to cease using the name “Houdini” and similar names in their musical and advertising activities.

The defendants filed an opposition to the injunctive relief, arguing that the invoked right lacked plausibility and that there was no risk of procedural delay. They also argued that the registered sign was null and void due to being descriptive and registered in bad faith, and that there was no likelihood of confusion with the activities carried out. They also requested the lifting of the injunctive relief, offering a deposit in lieu of the surety. The claimant opposed the lifting of the order, arguing that the ‘Houdini’ trademark was legitimate and that the injunctive relief needed to be maintained to prevent the defendants from continuing to use the sign unlawfully.

Witness evidence was presented, revealing that the registration of the Houdini trademark owned by Houdini Heritage KFT for classes 35 and 41 was supported by a licence granted by the CEO and manager of the “House of Houdini” museum, who had previously been authorised by a direct descendant of Houdini to manage the famous magician’s rights. Furthermore, the statement of claim is accompanied by a sub-licence agreement, dated 6 May 2025, whereby ‘House of Houdini’ authorises the claimant to use the ‘Houdini’ trademark in the European Union.

However, upon examining the sequence of authorisations and documents, the dates are striking:despite the ‘Houdini’ trademark having been registered in 2017, they all fall between the second half of 2024 and the end of July 2025. Furthermore, the court notes the gratuitous nature of the sub-licence granted to the claimant, Houdini Heritage KFT.

At this stage of the proceedings, the court must only evaluate whether the staging of the show “Houdini: A Magical Musical” by the defendants would infringe the claimant’s registered trademark. The application of the injunctive relief was based on the claimant’s intention to stage a similar show to commemorate the centenary of Houdini. However, it has not been established that such show will be staged. Furthermore, given that the defendants’ show began its run in October 2025, and that the claimant’s Houdini commemorative show requires over a year of preparation, which has not yet begun, the risk of confusion is mitigated.

Furthermore, the term “Houdini” refers to the name of a character in the public domain; consequently, the defendants’ use of it in the context of a fictional musical is not intended to identify commercial origin, but rather to describe the performance

For all the foregoing reasons and in view of the requirement of fumus boni iuris and the principle of proportionality it is considered disproportionate to order the defendants to withdraw and refrain from any use of the term ‘Houdini’, given indications that the registration may be void due to it being made without the consent of authorised persons and for a purpose unrelated to honest commercial practices.

While it is considered disproportionate to continue with the ordered injunctive relief, there is still a risk of harm to the claimant that must be safeguarded. Therefore, the defendants are required to pay a security deposit.

Order of the Commercial Court of Alicante 775/2025 of 17 November 20254