Introduction

Rosalia's fourth studio album, LUX, explores the interplay between light, spirituality, and artistic expression. The recent album release offers an unexpected lens through which to examine two fascinating Spanish trade mark judgments handed down in 2025 which, in a serendipitous parallelism, illuminate the complex relationship between personal identity, cultural heritage and intellectual property law. 

The first involves C. Tangana ― Rosalia’s ex-partner ― and the registration of the Spanish trade mark “TANGANA” for restaurant services, testing whether a celebrity pseudonym can monopolise common language. The second concerns the Spanish Supreme Court's resolution of a conflict between the domain name "mezquitadecordoba.org" and the trade mark "Mezquita de Córdoba," a dispute that, much like LUX itself, grapples with questions of religion, heritage, and the boundaries of intellectual property rights in sacred spaces. Together, these cases offer valuable insights into the evolving landscape of Spanish trade mark law.

Celebrity Pseudonyms and Common Language: The “Tangana” Case

Riera Sant Miquel 19 Restaurante S.L. (Riera) v. Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office (SPTO), January 2025

In LUX, every word carries weight, every lyric is deliberately chosen. The "Tangana" case mirrors this artistic philosophy, posing a fundamental legal question: can the name of a famous individual prevail over a word that belongs to the language?

Background

Signs at issue
	C. TANGANA
Spanish Trade Mark Application No. 4,196,560	Pseudonym of a Spanish singer, potential prior right

Riera applied to register the figurative mark “TANGANA” for restaurant services (class 43) in Spain. The SPTO refused registration under Article 9.1.b of the Spanish Trade Mark Act (STMA), which prohibits registration of names, surnames, or pseudonyms identifying a person other than the applicant without authorisation. The SPTO reasoned that the general public would associate “tangana” with the well-known musician C. Tangana ―Rosalia's former partner or as she sings in Reliquia, “a bad love affair in Madrid”, making registration without his consent impermissible.

Court Decision

The Madrid Court of Appeal reversed the decision and ordered registration in its Judgment No. 2/2025 of 10 January 2025 (ECLI:ES:APM:2025:113), holding that for Article 9.1.b of the STMA to apply, the term would need to be exclusively associated with the singer, which was not the case. “Tangana” is a well-established Spanish colloquialism for brawl or scandal, rooted in sports journalism and with multiple dictionary meanings. Whilst a specific sector of young fans might associate it with El Madrileño ―C. Tangana's best-known album and his alternative pseudonym― and Google searches prioritise the artist, this limited awareness was insufficient. A pseudonym of recent creation preceded by a mysterious “C.” cannot monopolise a traditional and commonly used linguistic term. No risk of association existed simply because a restaurant business sought to register a mark with a word element that carries independent significance.

The judgment is clear: a celebrity's claim to a word fails when that word has independent meaning and history. Both artists know this about Berlin, immortalised in his Demasiadas Mujeres and her Berghain, yet owned by neither. Fame creates associations, but Article 9.1.b of the STMA requires exclusivity. "Tangana" belongs to the Spanish language, not to one singer, just as Berlin belongs to everyone, even if that particular night in Berlin belongs only to El Madrileño and La Catalana (aka Rosalia).

Cultural Heritage vs. Prior Registration: The “Mezquita de Córdoba” Case

Cabildo de la Catedral de Córdoba (the Cathedral Chapter of Canons) v. Alhambra Valparaíso Ocio y Cultura S.L. (Valparaíso),September 2025

Rosalia’s LUX weaves orchestral grandeur with the sacred voices of the Escolanía de Montserrat, honouring tradition whilst creating something new. The “Mezquita de Córdoba” case presents a parallel question: when does cultural heritage override chronological priority?

Background

Valparaíso registered the domain name “mezquitadecordoba.org” in 2007, using it to advertise guided tours to the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba and other tourism services. The Cathedral Chapter of Canons, owner of several trade marks related to the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba ―including the EU trade mark “Mezquita de Córdoba” (word mark), granted in 2012 for classes 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 39, 41 and 43, including cultural activities―, initiated WIPO arbitration proceedings and obtained a decision ordering transfer of the domain name, finding trade mark infringement and bad faith commercial use.

Valparaíso challenged the decision in Spanish Courts, arguing prior registration and legitimate use. In first instance, the Commercial Court held that the Cathedral Chapter of Canons' trade marks were well-known and that the domain registration took unfair advantage of their reputation, creating a false impression that services marketed through the website had some connection (or even a common origin) with the Cathedral Chapter of Canons or the monument of the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba itself. In Second Instance, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, clarifying that whilst the trade marks themselves were not well-known, the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba was. Crucially, the Court of Appeal held that the ius prohibendi of a trade mark extends even to domain names obtained prior to the trade mark's registration. Valparaíso then lodged a procedural infringement appeal and a substantive appeal with the Spanish Supreme Court (SSC).

Court Decision

The SSC, in its recent Judgement No. 1341/2025 of 30 September 2025 (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:4206), dismissed Valparaíso's appeals. On the one hand, on the procedural infringement appeal, the SSC delivered a pointed rebuke to the Court of Appeal for confusing omissive incongruence with lack of exhaustiveness. The SSC emphasised that omissive incongruence (i.e., failure to rule on a claim) requires a motion to supplement the judgment, but lack of exhaustiveness (i.e., inadequate reasoning for a ruling actually made) does not. The Court of Appeal erred by demanding such a motion to Valparaíso when the Court of First Instance had in fact ruled on all the claims in Valparaíso's statement of claim ―including the challenge to the WIPO decision and declarations of non-infringement and non-transfer― albeit without adequately explaining why it rejected Valparaíso's prescription and priority arguments. These arguments were not independent claims, but rather grounds supporting Valparaíso's main claims. Thus, the SSC proceeded to analyse the tolerance and priority arguments substantively, but as they did not alter the outcome, it ultimately dismissed the appeal.

In particular, the SSC clarified that prescription by tolerance under Article 52.2 of the STMA applies only to “prior rights” listed in Articles 6-9.1, which expressly exclude domain names. Similarly, prior registration of a domain name is not amongst the limitations to ius prohibendi set out in Article 37 of the STMA, meaning the trade mark holder can enforce its rights against a confusingly similar domain name, without prejudice to any protection that may have arisen from the exercise of actions for invalidity or recovery, or from the rules on unfair competition. Thus, not on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds, Valparaíso's appeal for procedural infringement was dismissed by the SSC.

On the other hand, on the substantive appeal, the SSC confirmed the lower court's risk of confusion assessment. Valparaíso used a sign identical (or practically identical) to the registered trade marks, and services offered on the website (guided tours to the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba) not only overlapped with those for which the trade mark was registered but were closely related to services actually offered under the Cathedral Chapter of Canons' trade marks (ticket sales for the Mosque-Cathedral). The use of “.org” and a small disclaimer stating the site was not the official one of the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba actually reinforced the risk of confusion and association, as the public might believe services were provided by or affiliated with the trade mark holder, the Cathedral Chapter of Canons. The SSC cited Arsenal Football Club (CJEU judgment of 12 November 2002, C-206/01), confirming that such disclaimers do not necessarily eliminate confusion risk.

The ruling confirms a fundamental principle: prior registration of a domain name does not immunise against infringement when confusion with a trade mark exists. Rosalia understood this when she chose the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya for her album’s listening party, as certain spaces carry meaning beyond mere names. The Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, like the museum, is a cultural monument whose identity the law protects, regardless of who registered what first. 

Key Takeaways

These two judgments underscore a fundamental truth in trade mark law: registration matters. C. Tangana’s pseudonym could not monopolise a word in the Spanish language, and Valparaíso’s domain name could not exploit the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba’s sacred renown. In both cases, registered trade marks created enforceable rights that earlier uses  lacking exclusivity or tainted by bad faith could not overcome.

Rosalia understands this well. Beyond holding EU trade marks for her own name, she applied to register “LUX” as a word trade mark with the EUIPO months before the album’s release (in June 2025), covering musical recordings, merchandise, and live performances (classes 9, 25 and 41, respectively). This is merely the legal consequence of what she asks for in Magnolias, LUX’s closing track: a promise that she and her name will be protected in her absence

In trade mark law, as in art, registration secures what presence alone cannot. Presence inspires, but registration protects.