In 2021, Mr. Wonderful Communication S.L. brought a claim against the entities behind ALE-HOP for acts of unfair competition (imitation, confusion, exploitation of another’s reputation, and breach of the requirements of good faith). Both parties are engaged in the sale of gift products featuring illustrations incorporating short messages, and are well-established brands in the market. Mr. Wonderful has registered some of its drawings and designs in various countries. However, in the present case, it did not invoke its exclusive rights arising from those registrations.
This claim was dismissed at first instance because no acts of unfair competition were found to have taken place; the mere fact that the defendant used conceptually similar elements in its illustrations does not in itself constitute an act of unfair competition. At first instance, it was also not found that Mr. Wonderful possessed a distinctive style that enjoyed competitive distinctiveness or that there was a risk of association.
On appeal Mr. Wonderful’s claims were also dismissed, despite the Provincial Court recognising the distinctiveness of the claimant’s designs. In this case, no risk of association or confusion was found to exist, as at the time of purchase, the consumer is unable to doubt the commercial origin of the products due to the originality of ALE-HOP’s physical stores and the different trademarks displayed on the products marketed by both parties.
Mr. Wonderful lodged an extraordinary procedural appeal (which was dismissed in its entirety, primarily on the grounds that it did not address procedural issues) and an appeal in cassation (recurso de casación) arguing that consumers might be misled into assuming the existence of a collaboration or commercial link between the two brands, given that Mr. Wonderful bases its business model on collaborations with prestigious brands.
In this regard, the Spanish Supreme Court notes that the general rule is freedom of imitation (Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Act), which allows competitors to imitate the features of other competitors, provided that the necessary measures are taken to eliminate the risk of association. This risk can be eliminated by using distinctive forms of presentation (the appearance of the stores and the trademarks). Furthermore, the Spanish Supreme Court concludes that it has not been established that consumers perceive the existence of an economic or legal link between Mr. Wonderful and Ale-Hop.
The appellant also alleged an error in the assessment of the competitive distinctiveness that determines the risk of association in cases of unfair imitation. However, whilst the distinctiveness of Mr. Wonderful’s designs within a particular aesthetic style is recognised, the Court reiterates that the forms of presentation and the different trademarks mitigate that risk of association
In view of the circumstances, it is concluded that ALE-HOP has taken the necessary measures to avoid the risk of association through the originality of its stores (characterised by the cow at the entrance, the large glass shop windows and a specific arrangement of the products) and the use of the ALE-HOP trade mark on its products. There is also a clear distinction between the services offered by the two businesses as perceived by the average members of the relevant public. Furthermore, it has not been established that the relevant consumer might come to believe that Ale-Hop’s products are the result of any kind of commercial relationship between the parties.
Furthermore, it is not considered that ALE-HOP has unduly taken advantage of the efforts of others, as the costs incurred by Mr. Wonderful in creating the disputed features have not been substantiated or quantified. Nor is there any evidence of a predatory intent or of an attempt to hinder competition through systematic or excessive imitation in response to the natural market reaction, as the appellant does not specify the time period over which such imitations took place, nor the degree of immediacy with which they were carried out. Therefore, it is not possible to establish the systematic nature of the imitation.
For all these reasons, the extraordinary appeal on grounds of procedural irregularity and the appeal on cassation lodged by Mr. Wonderful Communication S.L. against the contested judgment are dismissed.
Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court. Civil Chamber (Section 1) No. 1408/2026 of 10 September 2026