Enprani Co. Ltd, a cosmetic manufacturer and retailer that markets a range of products under the Holika Holika brand. The products’ main ingredient is aloe vera. These products are sold in packaging shaped like an aloe leaf. Furthermore, such packaging is registered under three European trademarks for class 3.

To defend its trademarks, Enprani has taken legal action against Aquarius Cosmetics SL for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The defendant, which manufactures and distributes cosmetic products under the IDC INSTITUTE brand, is advertising two aloe vera cosmetic products on its website that reproduce the claimant’s packaging.

The defendant contested the claim and filed a counterclaim seeking to invalidate one of the plaintiff’s earlier trademarks on the grounds that it was descriptive, lacked distinctiveness, as well as having been applied for in bad faith. However, the initial judgment dismissed the counterclaim and upheld the claim in full.

Aquarius appealed against such judgment, arguing that the contested trademark lacked distinctive character because its shape was not significantly different to those commonly used in the sector for this type of aloe vera-based product. It also argued that it was an evocative shape that did not enable the average consumer to identify the product’s commercial origin. However, the Court ruled that the shape of the contested packaging differed substantially from other basic shapes for these products. Furthermore, the counter-claimant had not proved that, at the time of application or subsequently, the registered trademark constituted a common shape. The average consumer would perceive the packaging as having a different aesthetic and recognise that the products originate from a specific undertaking.

Another ground for the appeal is the descriptive nature of the contested trademark, as the appellant contends that it reproduces the characteristics inherent to the goods in question.The appellant also asserts that the link between the trademark and the aloe vera leaf is sufficiently direct and specific to suggest to the average consumer that it is descriptive of the characteristics of a product whose main ingredient is aloe vera. The appellant denies that the trademark is merely evocative. The Court, however, considers that the representation registered with EUIPO is not faithful to the actual nature of the aloe vera leaf, and that it cannot be inferred that the relevant public is familiar with it, as it is a stylised version rather than an obvious representation. Therefore, a certain knowledge of botany is required to recognise it, enabling the consumer to link the packaging and the product. Therefore, there is no clear or unambiguous link between the trademark and the goods for which it is registered. It has not been demonstrated that the three-dimensional trade mark conveys a message that is immediately understandable to the relevant public.

Ultimately, the Court rejects the appellant’s allegations of bad faith,acknowledges the similarity in packaging, and upholds the infringement claims. The appellant also argued that there were no acts of unfair competition because, in their view, no damage was caused to the claimant. However, the Court considers it proven that the parties’ products compete with each other and that the infringement of the trademarks has led to a diversion of customers, causing damage to the claimant. Furthermore, it has been established that the claimant grants licences, wich allows damages to be quantified in accordance with this criterion. For all these reasons, the defendant’s appeal t is dismissed.

Judgment of the Provincial Court of Alicante 3/2026 of 12 January 2026