Judgment 86/2024, handed down on 2 May 2024 by Barcelona Mercantile Court No. 6, ruled on an action brought by Kings Competition, S.L. and Kosmos Global Capital, S.L., the producers and broadcasters of the “Kings League”, against Brain Football, S.L., and Sports Events DCB, the companies responsible for producing and broadcasting the “Kids League”. The claimant filed three legal actions, all of which were dismissed by the Court with an award of costs. They based their actions on the following arguments.
Firstly, the claimant alleged that there had been an intellectual property infringement, arguing that both the Regulations of the Kings League and the format in which the entertainment programme was broadcast were items that were copyright protected. After making an assessment of originality and novelty in both objective and subjective terms, the Court concluded that the format was not liable for protection, since it followed a similar structure to other sports broadcasts, combining pre-existing elements with rules imported from other sports or competitions. Furthermore, given that the target audience and the aims pursued by each party were so different, there was no apparent plagiarism.
Secondly, the claimant cited a trademark infringement, alleging that the two marks were clearly distinctive and widely known. The Court found that a trademark that had not been registered and had enjoyed only brief popularity, as was the case here, did not give rise to a strong association between trademark and product, since for this one would require the trademark’s sustained and constant use in the marketplace. It also ruled that it had not been demonstrated that there had been any semantic, symbolic or phonetic confusion between the two marks.
Finally, the claimant cited three offences relating to unfair competitive practices. Firstly, the unlawful imitation of another party’s services, in contravention of Article 11.2 of the Spanish Unfair Competition Act. This was dismissed by the Court, which found that there was no risk of confusion between a young people’s tournament aimed at children and a global entertainment product promoted by streamers and celebrities. Secondly, it cited acts of unlawful comparison in an advertisement published via the social networks. This was also rejected by the Court, since there were no clear competitive advantages for the defendant over the claimant, this being an essential factor in the commission of this type of offence under Article 10 of the Unfair Competition Act. Lastly, the claimant cited taking improper advantage of the reputation of another (Article 12 of the Unfair Competition Act, which was also rejected. The Court found that the similarity between the channels used and the marketing methods employed did not mean that a reputational connection was formed with the Kings League.
In conclusion, the judgment ruled that the Kings League did not possess any exclusive intellectual or industrial property rights, and it therefore found that the acts of unfair competition cited had not been proven.
