On 10 September 2025, the EU General Court delivered a notable judgment in a trade mark dispute between fashion giant ZARA and Italian pasta producer Ffauf Italia SpA, known for pastaZARA. The pasta producer prevailed despite ZARA’s worldwide reputation.
The judgment underlines that even a globally famous mark does not enjoy unlimited protection. For businesses applying for registration or defending a reputed mark at EUIPO, context, history and evidence of use matter.
From pasta factory to courtroom
The Italian family business dates from 1898 and has used pastaZARA since the 1960s. The name refers to the family’s roots in Zara, now Zadar in Croatia, rather than to fashion. When Ffauf sought registration in 2023 of a new figurative mark for pasta and related foods, including “Sublime”, ZARA opposed it.
ZARA argued that the public would connect the fashion chain with the pasta brand. EUIPO initially agreed, finding that use of “Zara” would take unfair advantage of the fashion mark’s reputation.
A stronger case than it first appeared
Ffauf appealed and presented its history. It established decades of commercial use and produced earlier registrations, packaging and invoices. Crucially, that use was in good faith: it related to the factory’s origins and the city of Zara, not fashion.
The General Court took a different view. Fashion and pasta were neither competing nor related products, so there was no real likelihood of confusion. Even if the public made a link, Ffauf could rely on due cause: its longstanding, honest use of pastaZARA.
Limits to the power of famous marks
The court criticised EUIPO’s reasoning. The Board of Appeal had imposed legally unsustainable requirements, suggesting that Ffauf had to show it was necessary to use Zara or that an agreement with Inditex was required. It had also wrongly disregarded Ffauf’s good faith, a relevant consideration when assessing due cause.
ZARA’s fame therefore did not automatically entitle it to prevent every similar sign. Reputation is powerful, but not absolute.
What brands can learn
For businesses protecting or expanding their brands, the message is clear: authenticity and history carry weight. Decades of honest, consistent use can provide a strong position even against a multinational. Careful record-keeping also pays off: old registrations, packaging and commercial documents can make the difference.
The case also shows that EUIPO does not always have the last word. The General Court overturned the decision that had blocked registration. Litigation may therefore be worthwhile where a brand has a convincing history and solid evidence.
A strong brand is built through more than marketing expenditure. Authenticity, history and careful evidence of use matter too. Here, even a global brand such as ZARA had to yield to a pasta-making family with a well-supported story.
