The dispute arose when the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE) opposed an application to register the trademark “OLIMPO”, specifically in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beer). The COE relied on several earlier trademarks—specifically “Comité Olímpico Español”, “Juegos Olímpicos”, “Comite Olímpico Español” and “Olimpiada”—as grounds for its opposition. In response, the applicants sought the revocation of those earlier trademarks before the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM), arguing that they had not been put to genuine use.
The OEPM upheld those requests in whole or in part, and the COE appealed to the Madrid Court of Appeal. The COE argued, in essence, that the applicants lacked standing, that Olympic signs benefit from special protection under the Spanish Sports Act, and that, in any event, the trademarks had been used or that there were legitimate reasons justifying their non-use.
In this context, Section 32 of the Madrid Court of Appeal rejected those arguments and confirmed the total or partial revocation of the trademarks. The Court held that the enhanced protection granted to Olympic symbols does not exempt the COE from complying with the requirements of trademark law. It distinguished between the prohibition on third parties registering or improperly using Olympic signs—a matter governed by sports legislation—and the obligation of the trademark owner to make genuine use of the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered. In this regard, the Court reiterated that genuine use requires real commercial exploitation in the marketplace, intended to identify the commercial origin of goods or services and to create or preserve a market. Mere token use, generic references to Olympism, news articles, screenshots, or administrative decisions recognizing the notoriety of a family of trademarks are not sufficient.
On that basis, the Court concluded that the COE failed to prove genuine use of the specific trademarks in connection with all the registered goods and services during the statutory five-year period. As a result, some trademarks were revoked in their entirety—for example, “OLIMPIADA” and “JUEGOS OLÍMPICOS” in relation to certain goods or services—while others were revoked only partially, remaining in force solely for those services for which sufficient use had been demonstrated, such as education, training, or sporting activities, but not for the remaining registered classes or services. The Court also held that the notoriety of Olympic signs does not automatically constitute trademark use and rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic justified the lack of use, finding that the restrictions were temporary in nature and did not cover the entire relevant period of inactivity.
In conclusion, the judgments of Section 32 of the Madrid Court of Appeal serve as a reminder that even well-known or specially protected trademarks may be revoked if their owner fails to demonstrate genuine and effective use in connection with the specific goods or services covered by the registration. Consequently, registering a trademark for goods or services that are not actually commercialized may result in its revocation. It is therefore important to audit trademark portfolios regularly and maintain periodic records of trademark use.
At PLANA VENTURA GARCÉS, we are available to advise and assist you with any questions that may arise regarding trademark rights.
