On September 10th 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a remarkable ruling in a trademark case between fashion giant ZARA and Italian pasta manufacturer Ffauf Italia SpA, known for its pastaZARA brand. The result? The pasta maker won, despite ZARA’s global reputation.
This judgment emphasises that even a globally recognised brand does not enjoy unlimited protection. Companies applying for a trademark or seeking to defend their well-known brand at the EUIPO can see here how important context, history and proof of use are.
From pasta factory to courtroom
The Italian family business has been around since 1898 and has been using the name pastaZARA since the 1960s. The name does not refer to fashion, but to the city of Zara – now Zadar in Croatia – where the family had its roots. When Ffauf wanted to register a new logo for pasta and related food products in 2023, including the addition of ‘Sublime’, ZARA filed an opposition.
According to ZARA, the public would make a connection between the well-known fashion chain and the pasta brand. The EUIPO initially agreed with the fashion chain: the use of ‘Zara’ would piggyback on the reputation of the fashion brand.
A stronger story than expected
Ffauf appealed and presented its history. Not only could the company demonstrate that the name pastaZARA had been used commercially for decades, but it also had old registrations, packaging and invoices available. More importantly, the use was in good faith. It had nothing to do with fashion, but everything to do with the factory’s origins and its link with the city of Zara.
The Court took a different view of the case than EUIPO. It found that fashion and pasta are not competing or related products and that there was therefore no real likelihood of confusion. Even if the public were to make a connection, Ffauf could still invoke a valid reason: the long-standing and fair use of pastaZARA.
Limits to the power of well-known brands
The Court’s criticism of EUIPO’s reasoning was striking. The Board of Appeal had imposed requirements that were not legally tenable, such as the idea that Ffauf had to demonstrate that it was ‘necessary’ to use the name Zara or that there had to be an agreement with Inditex. The General Court also found that EUIPO had wrongly disregarded Ffauf’s good faith, even though this is a relevant factor in assessing a valid reason.
In short: the fact that ZARA is a famous brand does not mean that it can automatically prevent any similarity. Reputation is powerful, but not absolute.
What brands can learn from this
For companies wishing to protect or expand their brands, this ruling sends a clear message. Authenticity and history carry considerable weight. A brand that has been used honestly and consistently for decades stands strong, even against a multinational corporation. It also shows that it pays to carefully preserve evidence: old registrations, packaging, and commercial documents can make all the difference.
Furthermore, the case shows that the EUIPO does not always have the final say. Where the Board of Appeal blocked the registration, the General Court overturned that decision. Litigation can therefore be worthwhile, especially if there is a good story and solid evidence behind a trademark.
For entrepreneurs, this means that a strong brand is not only built with marketing budgets, but also with authenticity, history and careful proof of use. Even a global brand like ZARA had to bow to a pasta family with a story.
