This judgement settles the dispute concerning the compensation for damages arising from the infringement of Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs). Specifically, it considers whether, despite the lack of explicit provision for such actions in the European legislation, such a claim may be brought without having to resort to the provisions of the Spanish Unfair Competition Act.
On 21 October 2021, the Regulatory Council of the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Jabugo’ (CRDOP “Jabugo”) brought a claim against Charcutería Jabugo 2009 S.L. and Universal de Frutas y Verduras S.L., seeking a declaration that the use of the term “Jabugo” in the offering and marketing of meat products not covered by the PDO infringed the claimant’s exclusive rights and constituted various acts of unfair competition. It was also requested that the defendants be ordered to cease using the designation “Jabugo”, to withdraw all infringing commercial materials from the market, and to pay compensation for the damages caused.
The Court of First Instance partially upheld the claim, ordering Charcutería Jabugo to withdraw the infringing commercial materials, but rejected the claim for damages and acquitted Universal de Frutas on the grounds that it lacked standing to be sued. On appeal, the Provincial Court partially upheld the appeal lodged by CRDOP, ordering the cessation of the infringement involving the marketing of meat products not covered by the PDO and the withdrawal of the infringing commercial materials from Charcutería Jabugo. The claims relating to unfair competition were dismissed on the basis of the principle of relative complementarity between the relevant regulations; this entailed the dismissal of the claim for damages, as such claim was based on the Unfair Competition Act.
The claimant lodged an appeal (casación) with the Spanish Supreme Court, arguing there had been an incorrect application of the PDO’s autonomous protection system, on the grounds that Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs could not form the basis for a compensation of damages. The appellant urges the Chamber to rule that the action for compensation of damages falls within the scope of the ‘ius prohibendi’, such that its exercise does not require a basis in supplementary legislation; Otherwise it requests that the Chamber specifies the legislation on which compensation for this type of infringement should be based.
The Spanish Supreme Court considers that the absence of a system of specific remedies in the aforementioned European legislation does not allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn, and that the matter must therefore be resolved by reference to national legislation. The Spanish Act 6/2015 recognises the standing of regulatory councils to bring proceedings in defence of a PDO against infringements constituting acts of unfair competition and other forms of misuse. This protection is independent of that provided by the Unfair Competition Act, as an infringement of a PDO does not necessarily require the presence of an act of unfair competition. As it is a form of industrial property, it confers an exclusive right, the protection of which is not provided for by the Unfair Competition Act.
Consequently, the Spanish Supreme Court concludes that the defence of this exclusive right allows for recourse to the action for non-contractual civil liability under Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code. This interpretation is supported by Directive 2004/48/EC, which requires Member States to ensure adequate compensation for damages arising from infringements of intellectual property rights.
However, for the claim to succeed, the requirements specific to civil liability must be met. In this particular case, the Court ruled out compensation for non-pecuniary damage as it had not been proven, but recognised Charcutería Jabugo’s liability for pecuniary damage, given that, despite being aware of the existence of the PDO, it persisted in the infringing use even after being required to cease it. Conversely, Universidad de Frutas was found not liable because, as soon as it was requested to do so, it ceased using the designation and demanded that Charcuterías Jabugo remove the infringing signs from the premises they shared.
Judgment of the Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) No. 1253/2026 of 21 July 2026