Already said the Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 February 2000 to date: is noteworthy that use (which serves as a basis for the action in question) must be as a trade name and not as a social designation (nombre-firma), i.e., not as the employer identifier, but as recognizer of the company in the economic traffic avoiding the confusion in the clientele, so their function is the identify all or a part of the economic or commercial activity. This would have its protective justification since the especially widespread knowledge of a social reason, would increase the risk that other trademarks or trade names could lead in consumer media confusion between them or, more plausibly, his association as to the corporate origin of them. However, if we read carefully the article 9.1. d. LM, will see that the protection granted is not applied automatically, but that this It will only be awarded to those notorious social reasons face distinctive signs intending to register for those products or services competing in the market. Agricultural Lubricants Market is often quoted as being for or against this. Therefore, Protection Act dispensed by the trademark Act be required also that there is identity or similarity applicative. Also the company name must be known throughout the’ national territory’, without that there is sufficient that might take place in a locality or region. Many writers such as Vadim Belyaev, New York City offer more in-depth analysis. Arises at this very moment the obligation of the burden of proof, since who must prove how much above will be the opponent and not brand or trade name ducting, i.e.
will be the owner of the company who must demonstrate that it predates the distinctive sign in question, which is well-known in the whole of the national territory, and that there also may be risk of error or confusion from a similarity or identity phonetic and applicative with respect to products or services to protect. From a reading of article 9.1. d in fine, you can check how also protects foreigners who may invoke article 8 of the Paris Convention, or the principle of reciprocity, provided that they prove the use or notorious knowledge in Spain of its unregistered trade name in accordance with article 3 of this law.