El Rosco Trademark Battle: EU General Court Rules on ITV vs. MC F Ownership

No time to read?
Get a summary

A new episode of Pasapalabra examines the legal clash over who owns the El Rosco trademark. The European Union General Court rejected preliminary objections in a case brought by Good Services, a subsidiary of MC F. The action challenged decisions by the European Union Intellectual Property Office that canceled the El Rosco registration at ITV’s request, a move Good Services argued was filed with harmful intent.

The court’s ruling makes clear that Good Services sought to register El Rosco even though the mark was not a genuine creation or an expressive element tied to its own business interests. The dispute unfolds amid a competitive struggle between MC F and ITV over who holds rights to the final game of Pasapalabra, the format that has captivated audiences across Europe and beyond.

The decision also recounts that MC F, through its subsidiary, registered El Rosco as its own branding following a Madrid Commercial Court ruling in 2014 that stated El Rosco was part of the Pasapalabra format, which ITV had developed and claimed ownership of. In effect, ITV was temporarily blocked from using the El Rosco brand even though it originally created the concept. The General Court reaffirmed that El Rosco is a product of ITV within the Pasapalabra ecosystem and noted that Good Services appeared to stray from generally accepted standards of ethical conduct in trade and business.

A long court battle over its intellectual property

The resolution marks another milestone in the ongoing debate about the intellectual property rights surrounding Pasapalabra and the El Rosco element. Whether the General Court’s latest ruling will set a binding precedent or influence later decisions remains uncertain, given the bilateral litigation between ITV and MC F in the country.

For example, a Barcelona court issued a non-final decision in November 2022 that opened the door to an appeal, potentially forcing Atresmedia to suspend broadcasting El Rosco. The objection brought by the Netherlands-based MC F Publishing Production and Distribution CV prompted compensation to Atresmedia, including non-pecuniary damages of 50,000 euros, on grounds that the evidence questioned in the case violated intellectual property rights.

ITV appealed that decision to Spain’s Supreme Court, and until a resolution is reached, Pasapalabra and its final segment El Rosco will continue to air as before. Reports indicate that the Barcelona court concluded the El Rosco creators were Reto Luigi Pianta and René Mauricio Loeb, who transferred the rights to MC F. The court also found that MC F licensed the Italian company Einstein to include El Rosco in the Passaparola competition in 1998, with a second game built upon the license provided by ITV to the production company.

The court’s stance contrasted with a prior Commercial Court No. 8 decision that ruled in ITV and Atresmedia’s favor, finding that the Dutch entity had not proven authorship of the referenced program. This difference reflects the evolving interpretation of authorship and ownership in a format that blends game mechanics with brand identity, a nuance central to the Pasapalabra dispute.

Experts note that the legal narrative around El Rosco sits at the intersection of trademark protection, licensing agreements, and the creative rights embedded in a long-running televised format. The outcomes influence not only the players already in play but also future collaborations and how intellectual property is managed across borders in similar entertainment franchises. The central questions remain who holds the final say on the use of iconic elements like El Rosco and how licensing arrangements shape the ability of different parties to monetize or control a beloved game feature. The ongoing dialogue emphasizes that in entertainment, ownership hinges on contracts and licenses as much as on creative contribution and audience association with a brand identity. The situation continues to unfold as courts weigh the ethical and commercial implications of how such elements are allocated and exercised in the market. [citation: EU General Court decision analysis]

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Sevilla relies on Alonso as European dreams fade and league pressure grows

Next Article

Top Train Destinations and App Booking Trends in Russia