Pastel tones and childlike motifs in product design: a case study
Pure messages of self-affirmation merged with pastel hues and children’s drawings are not exclusive to Mr. Great, a point that Valencia’s commercial court number 5 affirmed as it rejected the claims brought by the Catalan company against Ale-Hop over certain design elements in its products.
The ruling is highly relevant because it touches on the idea of protecting an entire graphic style when it offers competitive distinctiveness. The decision did not hinge on copying a specific design; it centered on unfair competition, in particular disloyal imitation, consumer confusion, and the use of another’s reputation for gain. In essence, the court found that the alleged signature had a misleading effect, suggesting endorsement or affiliation that could unjustly enrich the claimant by leaning on similar visual elements.
Consequently, the claimant sought the removal and destruction of any product deemed to imitate his style, along with compensation for alleged damages.
Ale-Hop countered, arguing there was no counterfeit and that the elements Mr. Wonderful claimed as his own were public, widely adopted within a current market trend—especially the kawaii aesthetic popularized in Japan through decades of cartoons like Pokemon and Hello Kitty. This sensibility lends childlike qualities to many objects, according to Ale-Hop’s position.
The Grimalt family, who run a Catalan business since 2012, likewise asserted that this design approach had been developed across some of its product lines.
“Not found”
During the oral hearing, both sides presented expert reports to bolster their arguments. The judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Wonderful’s claim, stating that he does not own a graphic style with exclusive happiness as a competitive feature. The court noted that merely using similar conceptual elements does not prove infringement, especially when those elements are common within the kawaii movement.
The ruling also noted that other market players view these same elements as part of a broader trend and should not receive special protection for one operator alone.
The first Ale-Hop store in Mexico was mentioned in relation to the case, illustrating the brand’s international footprint.
In the judge’s view, there was no risk of association or confusion between the products of Ale-Hop and Mr. Wonderful. The record highlighted issues with a survey cited by Catalan counsel as unconvincing, and it was emphasized that Ale-Hop’s products are sold through its own channels, which further reduces potential confusion between brands.
Decision appealed
Mr. Wonderful has expressed dissatisfaction and appealed the Valencia County Court decision. The company has pursued similar lawsuits against other firms, such as Dcasa. A preliminary victory in one case gave way to a later ruling by the Alicante Provincial Court, which sided with the accused and led to a settlement in the Supreme Court. The overall stance was to refrain from making a broad assessment of the company.
Ale-Hop crosses the Atlantic to expand into Mexico
Ale-Hop has publicly welcomed the court’s decision, stating that it confirms the absence of disloyal acts and rejects Mr. Wonderful’s attempt to claim a private monopoly over a popular and evolving design trend. The company underscores a strong commitment to intellectual property rights through a dedicated design department that invests substantial resources in developing original creations that become the brand’s hallmark. The firm is represented by legal counsel in this matter, without disclosing further sensitive details.
[Citation: Court documents, Valencia County Court decision on the case between Mr. Wonderful and Ale-Hop; public records, case numbers and press summaries.]