Justice once again sided with İllice Brands Group (IBG) in its enduring dispute with Lacasa Chocolates over the Conguitos brand. The legal battles have traced a long line through the courts, repeatedly favoring the Esquitino family business, which uses the Conguitos name to market children’s clothing and footwear across various markets.
In the most recent phase, the matter focused on whether the Conguitos mark could be used for perfumery products, jewelry, and other accessories such as jewelry, umbrellas, leather goods, or imitation leather backpacks. The Elche-based company filed an application in 2012 with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The office raised no objections to granting registration, allowing the brand to extend its reach into these additional product areas.
Chocolates Lacasa then pushed back, filing for cancellation of the registration on the grounds that the use of the mark caused consumer confusion and unfairly leveraged the reputation of their own brand. They claimed that IBG acted in bad faith and sought to exploit a reputation they believed was not theirs to claim in these new product classes.
However, the EUIPO Appeal Board found that Lacasa had failed to prove that its own reputation was exceptional enough to lead the relevant public to confuse the two brands across different product categories or that there was a risk of misleading use. The board rejected the request for annulment, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or of the likelihood that the public would be misled into associating the two trademarks in the context of the proposed goods and services.
Chocolates Lacasa did not accept the decision and challenged it again at the EU General Court. Once more, the court aligned with the Elche company and with EUIPO, reinforcing the initial assessment that the arguments presented did not demonstrate a credible basis for concluding that the former Conguitos branding would unfairly exploit the reputation of the chocolate brand for peanuts covered in chocolate in relation to IBG-registered classes.
According to the court’s judgment, there were no convincing explanations or arguments showing that the requested registration would unfairly capitalize on Lacasa’s established reputation in a way that would mislead consumers about the origin or quality of the new product ranges in question. The court’s stance rested on evaluating whether the adjuvant or related marketing activities could meaningfully distort consumer perception or erode brand distinctiveness in the relevant markets. The decision emphasized that the mere existence of earlier registrations in other product areas did not automatically imply bad faith or gratuitous confusion in the current context. This was a decisive point in maintaining a clear separation between the clothing and footwear lines and the chocolate confectionery brand, while still allowing parallel branding opportunities for the Conguitos name in different product classes, under careful legal scrutiny and market realities.
Owner of Conguitos and D. Franklin, IBG’s leadership has highlighted expectations of significant invoicing this year, signaling strong growth and expanding brand reach across multiple product segments. The court’s rulings in this case have framed a broader narrative about trademark strategy, brand equity, and the practicalities of managing a diversified portfolio in a competitive consumer goods landscape. The judiciary’s careful balance between protecting established reputations and allowing legitimate brand extension helps clarify how similar marks can coexist or diverge based on consumer perception and product context, rather than on mere ownership of a name alone.
In a related development, the General Court’s decision reiterates that the absence of bad faith can be demonstrated through consistent commercial logic underpinning registration choices. IBG’s approach—seeking protection for the Conguitos name not just on chocolate products but also on apparel and related accessories—reflects a strategic effort to anchor the brand across lifestyle segments where consumer recognition already exists, while ensuring that offering details and product classifications align with EU trademark standards and market expectations. The Supreme Court’s subsequent rulings on related disputes have further established a framework for evaluating how brand families expand without infringing or confusing the market, particularly when one brand operates in the food sector and another in clothing and footwear. This evolving jurisprudence has broader implications for multinational brand management, especially for family-owned enterprises navigating cross-border intellectual property landscapes and the complex interplay between product categories and consumer associations.
Owner of Conguitos and D. Franklin expects 30 million invoices this year
Moreover, the General Court’s assessment indicates there is no compelling evidence suggesting that Esquitinos is acting in bad faith. The application for the disputed trademark registration traces back to earlier protections already secured for the clothing and footwear trademarks, and the current filing appears to align with a coherent commercial strategy rather than a move to unfairly exploit another brand’s reputation. This interpretation supports IBG’s stance that its branding strategy is anchored in legitimate business logic and a recognized market presence across different product families.
As a result, IBG wins another round in a lengthy legal sequence against Chocolates Lacasa. Elche, meanwhile, has secured the use of the Conguitos name for clothing and footwear, following a November ruling that upheld the previous decision against the food company’s appeal, a decision upheld by higher courts and reinforcing the principle that brand extension should be evaluated on its own merits and market behavior rather than on the mere existence of prior registrations. The ongoing saga illustrates how trademark law continues to shape brand architecture for consumer products and how litigated outcomes can influence corporate strategy across Europe and beyond, especially for family-owned groups with diversified product lines and enduring brand legacies that demand careful stewardship and strategic foresight. [Source: EUIPO and General Court rulings cited in the case files on Conguitos branding and related apparel registrations]