Grand Hotel Central Barcelona S.L. acquired, through a sale and purchase agreement with UNICO Hospitality Group S.L., the building commonly known as Casa Cambó, situated in Barcelona, as well as the hotel business housed within it. Furthermore, the parties signed a management agreement under which UNICO would provide management services for the hotel located within that building. However, following the signing of the sale and purchase agreement, UNICO registered the European Union trade mark ‘CASA CAMBÓ’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 43 relating to hospitality and management services. In response to this registration, Grand Hotel filed an application for a declaration of invalidity on the grounds that the contested trade mark was misleading and had been registered in bad faith.

The EUIPO Cancellation Division declared the contested EU trade mark invalid in its entirety, finding that there had been bad faith in the registration, since a contractual relationship existed between the parties at the time of the application. That relationship imposed a duty of loyalty on the proprietor towards its business partner. Although the sales contract did not expressly mention a prohibition on registering the name CASA CAMBÓ, this does not imply that the applicant consented to this registration. Therefore, the trademark owner, being aware that the symbol corresponded to a well-known sign of the city of Barcelona, attempted to create a monopoly to commercially exploit that symbol and its evocative potential on an exclusive basis, thereby preventing or hindering its use.

UNICO appealed the decision, arguing that the name “Casa Cambó” cannot be attributed exclusively to the building in Barcelona, as this term refers to all the residences that belonged to Mr Francesc Cambó i Batlle. Furthermore, Mr P.G. Cambó, the legitimate grandson of Mr Cambó and sole director of the company owner of the contested trade mark, maintains that he has the right to preserve his surname without this prejudicing the purchaser’s interests. He also claims that the use of the name “Casa Cambó” to identify a building differs from and does not conflict with its use as a trade mark. Furthermore, he argues that no trade mark use was agreed upon in the sale contract and moreover denies the building’s renown on the grounds that it does not appear in tourist guides nor is it accessible to the general public.

The applicant argues that the sign is identical to the name widely associated with the building. It also contends that the trademark owner is acting in bad faith by attempting to create a monopoly to commercially exploit, on an exclusive basis, the well-known symbol of CASA CAMBÓ and its evocative potential.

The Board of Appeal notes that neither the disputed name nor its variants had been registered as a trade mark prior to the sale. This explains why the use and registration of trade marks were not addressed in the contracts. In this regard, the Board of Appeal considers that, although the contract of sale did not contain an express clause regarding the use of the disputed names, it follows from fair and consistent commercial practice that, as they correspond to the manner in which the transferred property is designated, they remain linked to it and to its new owner, the applicant for the declaration of invalidity. Furthermore, the fact that the building is identified as GRAND HOTEL CENTRAL in the contract does not detract from the reality of its historical name, CASA CAMBÓ (or its variants), nor from its customary name in the public domain. It is therefore reasonable conduct that, alongside the transfer, the seller thereby enables the peaceful enjoyment of the property sold. This peaceful enjoyment is understood to include the right to designate the acquired building as CASA CAMBÓ or the acquired hotel as the GRAND HOTEL CENTRAL of Barcelona at CASA CAMBÓ.

The registration of the CASA CAMBÓ trade mark for hotel and management services conflicts with the activities of the hotel located at CASA CAMBÓ. For this reason, the trade mark proprietor should have refrained from using the trade mark following the sale of the property, the hotel and the domain names, as failure to do so causes prejudice to the purchaser. This registration prevents the new owner from registering and using the name, and empowers the proprietor to exercise their right of prohibition, which could hinder or prevent the applicant for invalidation from continuing to use the names by which the building is known, in which a hotel business is operated. .

For all these reasons, the Board of Appeal finds that the registration was made in bad faith and confirms the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the trade mark invalid.

Decision of EUIPO’s First Board of Appeal of 13 March 2026 in Case R 1367/2025-1