{"id":13015,"date":"2026-05-05T09:30:48","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T07:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/?p=13015"},"modified":"2026-05-05T09:36:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T07:36:04","slug":"roncato-when-a-coexistence-agreement-redefines-the-rules-of-a-trademark-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/intellectual-property\/roncato-when-a-coexistence-agreement-redefines-the-rules-of-a-trademark-conflict","title":{"rendered":"Roncato: When a coexistence agreement redefines the rules of a trademark conflict"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>The Spanish Supreme Court has brought to an end the trademark dispute between the two branches of the Italian Roncato family, a leading name in the luggage sector. The companies, Valigeria Roncato and Baulificio Italiano, will continue to use the surname \u201cRoncato\u201d in their respective trademarks, in accordance with the coexistence agreement signed in 1996.<\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>The origins of the business date back to 1957, when Antonio Roncato began marketing suitcases under the \u201cRoncato\u201d brand. After working in their father\u2019s business, his two sons, Giovanni and Carlo, set up on their own in 1973, founding Valigeria Roncato S.p.A., which pursued the same activity. Subsequently, in 1983, the father founded Baulificio Italiano Sorelle Roncato S.r.l., which used both the name \u201cRoncato\u201d and, from 1985 onwards, the letter \u201cR\u201d as distinctive signs.<\/p>\n<p>Following their father\u2019s death, the two brothers became co-owners of both companies until, in 1996, they decided to divide up the business. The agreement allowed both of them to use the surname \u201cRoncato\u201d on an equal basis, provided that the trademarks that included the term did not give rise to confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<p>At present, both companies are the owners of the figurative marks that include this term:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13020\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_01-300x11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"34\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_01-300x11.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_01-768x29.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_01.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearch\/#details\/trademarks\/005622915\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13022\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_02-300x30.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"89\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_02-300x30.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_02-768x76.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_02.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www3.wipo.int\/madrid\/monitor\/en\/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.646280\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13024\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_03-300x30.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"89\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_03-300x30.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_03-768x76.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_03.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www3.wipo.int\/madrid\/monitor\/en\/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.519398\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13026\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_04-300x30.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"89\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_04-300x30.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_04-768x76.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_04.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13028\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_05-300x11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"34\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_05-300x11.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_05-768x29.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_05.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearch\/#details\/trademarks\/009693094\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13030\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_06-300x30.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"89\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_06-300x30.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_06-768x76.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_06.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearch\/#details\/trademarks\/014241848\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-13032\" src=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_07-300x30.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"900\" height=\"89\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_07-300x30.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_07-768x76.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20260504_EN_07.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>All of the marks owned by Valigeria Roncato are registered in class 18 of the Nice Classification (leather articles, suitcases, trunks and travelling bags, etc.). In the case of Baulificio Italiano, although <a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearch\/#details\/trademarks\/009693094\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">EU trademark 9693094<\/a> covers goods in classes 18 and 20, <a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearch\/#details\/trademarks\/014241848\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">EU trademark 14241848<\/a> was registered in classes 3, 9 and 35 (perfumery, cosmetics, glasses, retailing and wholesaling), without including suitcases or similar articles among the products it covers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The dispute arose when Valigeria Roncato became aware that Baulificio Italiano Sorelle Roncato was marketing suitcases in Spanish supermarkets and on the Amazon platform using a sign which, in its view, infringed its trademarks, as the use was neither authorized nor protected by that company\u2019s registered marks. This led Valigeria Roncato to file a claim against Baulificio Italiano Sorelle Roncato.<\/p>\n<p>Valigeria Roncato\u2019s strategy in the claim was based on several arguments:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Infringement due to a likelihood of confusion<\/strong>: Valigeria Roncato held that the signs used by the defendant created a likelihood of confusion with its registered trademarks in accordance with article 9.2.b) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/doue\/2017\/154\/L00001-00099.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Regulation on the EU trademark<\/a> and article 34.2.b) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/buscar\/act.php?id=BOE-A-2001-23093\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Trademarks Law<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Enhanced protection of well-known trademarks<\/strong>: it argued that its trademarks had a reputation in the EU and that the defendant was taking unfair advantage of that reputation in accordance with article 9.2.c) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/doue\/2017\/154\/L00001-00099.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Regulation on the EU trademark<\/a> and 34.2.c) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/buscar\/act.php?id=BOE-A-2001-23093\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Trademarks Law<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Termination of the 1996 agreement<\/strong>: in the alternative, it argued that it was entitled to unilaterally withdraw from the 1996 agreement, on the grounds that it was an obligation for an indefinite period.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It also brought unfair competition claims based on articles 6 (acts of confusion) and 12 (exploitation of a third party\u2019s reputation) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/buscar\/act.php?id=BOE-A-1991-628\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Unfair Competition Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judgment at first instance and appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Both the Alicante Commercial Court and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.poderjudicial.es\/search\/AN\/openCDocument\/9242aa186e2a52e6bf353173f5c71a3821267c7536e29d14\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Alicante Provincial Appellate Court<\/a> dismissed the claim in full.<\/p>\n<p>The courts found that the 1996 agreement could not be construed as an authorization by Valigeria Roncato for the defendant to use its trademarks. On the contrary, it was a coexistence agreement that had arisen due to a complex family situation, which allowed both parties to use the surname \u201cRoncato\u201d on an equal footing. For this reason, case law by the CJEU in the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/ES\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=CELEX:62011CA0661\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Martin y Paz Diffusion case<\/a> was not applicable, since it refers to situations in which a trademark owner decides to withdraw the consent previously granted to a third party to use its trademark. In this case, there was no third party that depended on such consent, but rather two trademarks that had been coexisting for years based on an agreement. This distinction completely altered the direction of the case.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the likelihood of confusion, the courts concluded that given that the surname \u201cRoncato\u201d had been used peacefully for many years, the distinctive nature of the signs lay mainly in their elements (\u201cVR\u201d as opposed to \u201cR\u201d). The differences between the marks (including color, font, etc.) were sufficient to rule out the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In recent judgement <a href=\"https:\/\/www.poderjudicial.es\/search\/AN\/openDocument\/82930421863415b5a0a8778d75e36f0d\/20260226\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">no. 214\/2026, of February 12, 2026,<\/a> the Supreme Court dismissed both the special appeal concerning procedural infringement as well as the cassation appeal, and upheld the decision by the provincial appellate court.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court ruled out the possibility of unilateral termination of the agreement. The crucial aspect is that the agreement was based on the mutual recognition that both parties were entitled to use the name \u201cRoncato\u201d, rather than that Valigeria Roncato had assigned an exclusive right that it had previously held. This interpretation ties in with the context in which the agreement was signed: to enable the two companies to continue to use the shared name, which had significant value as a well\u2011established name in the luggage sector.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Supreme Court, the existence of the agreement changes the way in which the likelihood of confusion must be assessed. Since both companies are entitled to use the term \u201cRoncato\u201d, the surname must be set aside when comparing the conflicting trademarks. The key issue therefore becomes whether the other distinctive elements \u2013 the \u201cVR\u201d sign as compared with \u201cR\u201d \u2013 are alone sufficient to cause confusion among consumers regarding the business origin of the products. Once the common term is disregarded, the Court finds that the remaining characteristics of the trademarks are sufficiently different for the average consumer to identify the origin of each product without difficulty.<\/p>\n<p>The same reasoning applies to the allegation of unfair advantage being taken of a well-known trademark. For this protection to enter into play, the defendant&#8217;s signs must generate a &#8220;link&#8221; or association with the well-known trademark in the eyes of the average consumer. However, once the term &#8220;Roncato&#8221; is removed from the comparison, the differing graphic representations of \u201cVR\u201d and \u201cR\u201d do not produce such association. Without the surname, no unfair advantage is taken.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the unfair competition claims were dismissed pursuant to the principle of relative complementarity, on the grounds that they were based on the same facts. In addition, the Supreme Court did not examine this ground, holding that the appellant had not pointed to an infringement of any statutory provision, but only to the breach of case law.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The judgment provides several important lessons for legal practice:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Trademark coexistence agreements are binding<\/strong>. They cannot be terminated unilaterally, since doing so would run counter to the actual purpose of the agreement. Therefore, neither party is entitled to bring the agreed arrangement to an end by unilateral withdrawal.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Coexistence agreements reshape the assessment of likelihood of confusion<\/strong>. Where there is an agreement in place that allows both parties to use a common term, that term must be excluded from the comparison of the trademarks in question and the analysis must instead focus on the remaining distinctive features.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The same applies to claims of unfair advantage of a trademark with a reputation<\/strong>. If it is the shared term that generates the reputation, the party that is entitled to use it under the agreement cannot be alleged to have taken unfair advantage of the mark.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The principle of relative complementarity is fully applicable<\/strong>, since unfair competition claims cannot succeed where they are directed at the very same conduct already assessed under trademark law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As in so many family sagas, it is ultimately the surname that lies at the heart of the dispute. In this case however, the outcome is more measured: <strong>the Supreme Court reminds us that where there is an agreement, there are also<\/strong> limits.<\/p>\n<p>In short, <strong>a party that has agreed to share a distinctive sign cannot then wield it as a weapon in a lawsuit to support claims of confusion or unfair advantage of a well\u2011known mark.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.garrigues.com\/en_GB\/team\/isabel-pascual-quinto-santos-suarez\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Isabel Pascual de Quinto Santos-Su\u00e1rez<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.garrigues.com\/en_GB\/services\/intellectual-property\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Intellectual Property Department<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Spanish Supreme Court has brought to an end the trademark dispute between the two branches of the Italian Roncato family, a leading name in the luggage sector. The companies, Valigeria Roncato and Baulificio Italiano, will continue to use the surname \u201cRoncato\u201d in their respective trademarks, in accordance with the coexistence agreement signed in 1996. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":12988,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,95,96],"tags":[904],"coauthors":[575],"class_list":["post-13015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-designs","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-trademark-squatting-en"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13015"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13015\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13038,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13015\/revisions\/13038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12988"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13015"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}