In Madrid, a high-stakes dispute over bag designs centers on Anekke and imitators
There is only one Anekke, a name that has become synonymous with a distinctive range of leather goods. In a case heard by Madrid’s commercial court number 17, the Alicante-based Sany Bags SL, known as Azzar Group, challenged a Madrid-based leather goods company accused of copying Anekke’s popular bag designs, a line that has achieved sales success in more than sixty markets.
The court verdict states that the products marketed by Sweet Candy Bags SL blend in with those from Sany Bags, design-wise and commercially. The ruling characterizes the sellable line as an unfair practice through acts of imitation. As a result, the Madrid firm was ordered to halt production and distribution of that product line and to withdraw any items using the same or substantially similar elements to Sany Bags’ prior creations, at its own expense. It also requires the company to remove those products from retail and wholesale channels and to destroy them.
The decision remains subject to appeal, with proceedings ongoing at the Madrid County Court. Sugar Bags has not yet indicated whether it plans to appeal.
Azzar Group notes that the issue first emerged several years ago when a line of bags and leather goods bearing striking similarities to Anekke’s brand appeared on the market. Anekke was launched nine years ago to embody the values of an independent, bold, and aspirational woman, with a doll as its emblem. The level of similarity was such that some counterfeit buyers allegedly boasted online that they could not distinguish Anekke’s designs from those of the rival line. Distributors also reported confusion with brands perceived as lower-priced alternatives.
Azzar Group is led by the Puri brothers, José Ramón and Mercé Brotons. Further investigations indicated that another company from Fuenlabrada, also active in importing and selling leather goods, decided to pursue a legal action to defend its intellectual property and the network of some 120 affiliated businesses.
During the trial, the Madrid firm argued that it is not a counterfeit brand and pointed to its broad market presence, noting that many brands operate with similar motifs and baby-doll-inspired designs. An expert report was submitted to emphasize the differences between its own designs and those associated with the Petrer-based firm. The defense also referenced other brands with overlapping aesthetics, such as Gorjuss and Kimmidoll, to illustrate market realities where similar designs circulate.
Yet the Magistrate of Commercial Court No. 17 found that the perceived differences are so minor that a consumer may not reliably distinguish them with the naked eye. The court cited a study involving 501 interviews, where 81% of respondents believed the two design families could be mixed. The ruling also considered the broader context of the dolls, the settings in which the products are sold, and the target audience.
In the broader context of holiday season retail, many brands face imitation pressures. The court decision partially addresses these concerns by ordering the Madrid company to stop marketing what it deemed counterfeit and to withdraw from distribution channels. It does not appear to include damages for unjust enrichment at this stage, with the possibility of further petitions depending on later rulings and appeals.
This case highlights how design elements, branding narratives, and consumer perceptions intersect in modern fashion and accessory markets. The outcome will influence how similar disputes are handled in Spain, and it underscores the challenges brands face when safeguarding distinctive aesthetics while navigating a crowded marketplace.
More fake toys for Christmas
The litigation remains a focal point in ongoing debates about counterfeit fashion goods. In this dispute, the court’s decision to halt the spread of adversarial designs reflects a broader willingness to intervene when imitation threatens a brand’s identity and market position. It also signals that courts may require brands to actively police their lines and protect intellectual property through robust evidence and clear branding distinctions.
The overarching takeaway is that when a brand is perceived as closely resembling another in a way that confuses consumers, courts may step in to preserve fair competition and protect originality. The case continues to unfold as both sides review possible next steps and potential settlements.