The Supreme Court has closed the legal confrontation between the gift and stationery firms Mr. Wonderful and Ale-Hop by concluding that the latter did not engage in acts of "unfair imitation" in relation to the designs of the former.
This is stated in a ruling, which Europa Press has accessed, in which the Civil Chamber of the high court completely dismisses the appeal filed by Mr. Wonderful and confirms the resolution of the Provincial Court of Valencia, which had already rejected the lawsuit for unfair competition filed against Ale-Hop.
Five years of legal dispute
The resolution recalls that the conflict began in 2021, when Mr. Wonderful filed a lawsuit before a court in Valencia accusing Ale-Hop of "acts of unfair competition, particularly unfair imitation," claiming compensation and requesting "to withdraw from economic circulation and destroy all products that imitate" its style, among other measures. The court fully dismissed the lawsuit and acquitted Ale-Hop's parent company, Clave Denia, of all claims directed against it.
Subsequently, the Provincial Court of Valencia rejected the appeal filed by Mr. Wonderful. The company requested clarification arguing, among other points, that "the ruling does not justify or develop in any way what is referred to the alleged acts of imitation based on the undue exploitation of the reputation or the effort of others," as stated by the Civil Chamber.
In response to that decision, the plaintiff went to the Supreme Court with an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement. The court explains that in this procedure "the concurrence of the circumstances that determine the disloyalty of the imitation of the services of a third party is questioned," and emphasizes that Mr. Wonderful "does not invoke the exclusive right derived from the registration of industrial designs," so that "the controversy arises solely within the framework of the protection of the right against unfair competition."
Objects "endowed with human expression" and previous trends
To resolve the litigation, the Supreme Court starts from a series of "relevant" facts, among them that both companies "have a significant number of points of sale in Spain."
The court also notes that "there are trends in the market established prior to Mr. Wonderful's business initiative and its designs," based on "the combination of images of personalized objects or endowed with human expression and brief messages in which the typography of the letters constitutes part of the design that is incorporated into a specific product," and that these two companies "are not the only companies that market objects that incorporate drawings and messages."
In this line, the judges recall that the Provincial Court recognized that this "uniqueness" in Mr. Wonderful's designs "has been key to its success," which has caused the evolution of products from other brands "to have approached" its "particular aesthetic," easily "recognizable by consumers."
However, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the Court also specified that this does not imply "that all the requirements" to be covered by Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Law are met, which establishes that the imitation of services will be unfair "when it is suitable to generate the association by consumers regarding the service or involves an undue exploitation of the reputation or effort of others."
Without "factual error" or defenselessness
In its cassation appeal, Mr. Wonderful argued that "the appealed judgment has carried out an illogical and irrational assessment of the evidence presented," considering that Ale-Hop "has taken advantage" of its reputation, asserting that the appellant "has proposed a singular and novel style, which has been imitated" by the defendant "continuously and recurrently."
The Supreme Court replies that "the appellant does not refer to any specific factual error, evident and immediately verifiable in the assessment of the evidence, whose infringement it denounces."
It adds that, in reality, what is raised is a question of legal qualification, "which is specific to the cassation appeal and not to a procedural issue," so it is "inadmissible" in the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement. "It is a legal conclusion that the judgment draws from the proven facts and that can be contested in the cassation appeal, but not in the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement as an erroneous or arbitrary assessment of the evidence," explains the Chamber.
The high court also dismisses that there has been a denial of defense and emphasizes that the appellant "does not prove or specify that the Provincial Court has incurred in any evident and immediately verifiable factual error in the assessment of the evidence," nor that this supposed error —"not proven"— "affects a determining element of the evidentiary conclusion."
"In conclusion, the appealed judgment is not incongruous, as it does not omit any pronouncement, since it fully dismisses the appeal of the plaintiff and, consequently, her claim. That this pronouncement is contrary to her expectations does not mean that it is incongruous," concludes the Supreme Court.
"There is no risk of association" between both brands
On another note, the court shares the criterion of the Provincial Court by stating that "Ale-Hop has indeed incorporated the necessary elements to limit the risk of association, and that such precautions are sufficient to avoid any confusion about the business origin of the services."
"In the present case, there is no risk of association when the purchase is made by the consumer, who cannot have doubts about the business origin of the service," insists the Chamber. This conclusion is supported by two distinctive elements: the emblematic cow located at the entrance of each establishment and the visible use of the Ale-Hop brand on the products.
The presence of these signs "clearly evidences the different business origin of the services of Ale-Hop, thereby cutting off any risk of association," indicates the Civil Chamber, which also rejects this reason alleged by Mr. Wonderful.
The court also highlights that, according to established doctrine, in this case, there is no undue exploitation of another's effort.
The judgment adds that the appellant has also not proven the "predatory purpose of Ale-Hop," and recalls that "it is an established fact" that this company was already using in 2009 and 2010 —before the appearance of Mr. Wonderful— "designs in which drawings and texts that participate in the controversial elements in this procedure were combined."
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismisses both the extraordinary grounds for procedural infringement and the cassation grounds formulated by Mr. Wonderful and imposes on him the payment of the costs generated in this instance.