Go back to News
NEWS
GA_P represents INTERPORC, PROVACUNO, INTEROVIC, ASICI, AVIANZA and INTERCUN in the lawsuit against Foods for Tomorrow
4 June, 2024
The interprofessional organisations INTERPORC, PROVACUNO, INTEROVIC, ASICI, AVIANZA and INTERCUN, represented by Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, have partially won the lawsuit brought against Foods for Tomorrow (Heüra) for greenwashing advertising.
The judgment, handed down on 23 April 2024, declares that Heüra has committed acts of unfair competition on the grounds that its advertising consisting of statements relating to livestock and meat products is misleading, denigratory and an unlawful comparison.
What is relevant in this judgment is the conviction of Heüra, which states that the advertising that has been declared unlawful was carried out through an intense campaign on the social network Instagram, as well as the advertising banner in Toledo Street in Madrid (A hamburger pollutes more than your car). Although the banner was removed, the plaintiff has proved in its lawsuit how the lawsuit has even ‘profited’ from the previous injunction procedure, with the publication of photographs and videos. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant’s conduct will continue or that the misleading, denigrating and unlawfully comparative acts will remain in the consumer’s memory.
The GA_P team was formed by José Luis Palma, counsel for Public and Regulated Sectors, and Mónica Esteve and Mercedes Corbal, respectively counsel and associate for Industrial and Intellectual Property.
Congratulations to all of them!
The judgment, handed down on 23 April 2024, declares that Heüra has committed acts of unfair competition on the grounds that its advertising consisting of statements relating to livestock and meat products is misleading, denigratory and an unlawful comparison.
What is relevant in this judgment is the conviction of Heüra, which states that the advertising that has been declared unlawful was carried out through an intense campaign on the social network Instagram, as well as the advertising banner in Toledo Street in Madrid (A hamburger pollutes more than your car). Although the banner was removed, the plaintiff has proved in its lawsuit how the lawsuit has even ‘profited’ from the previous injunction procedure, with the publication of photographs and videos. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant’s conduct will continue or that the misleading, denigrating and unlawfully comparative acts will remain in the consumer’s memory.
The GA_P team was formed by José Luis Palma, counsel for Public and Regulated Sectors, and Mónica Esteve and Mercedes Corbal, respectively counsel and associate for Industrial and Intellectual Property.
Congratulations to all of them!
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
5 days ago 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
Use as pastiche of another person's work or rendition protected by copyright
This paper examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 April 2026, Pelham (C-590/23, ECLI:EU:C:2026:290), which interprets the exception for pastiche contained in Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
Automotive and Sustainable Mobility No. 30
Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.
¡NEW!
PUBLICATION
3 days ago
Supreme Court clarifies VAT treatment of intra-group transfers of shares carried out by mixed holding companies
The Supreme Court has established ‘cassational’ doctrine regarding the treatment under value-added tax of intra-group transfers of shares by mixed holding companies. It is confirmed that the intra-group transfer of shares constitutes a financial activity that cannot generally be classified as a management support activity. Likewise, it is acknowledged that an intra-group transfer of shares may not be subject to said tax when it involves the indirect transfer of an independent economic unit, subjecting such exclusion to the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
3 days ago
PUBLICATION
5 days ago
Supreme Court rules on ‘administrative silence’ in the electricity sector: “public service” or “service of general economic interest”
The Supreme Court judgment of 10 April 2026 characterises the concept of public service under Article 24(1) of Act 39/2015 as an exception to the ‘double silence’ rule, distinguishing it from the concept of service of general economic interest, which applies in liberalized sectors such as that of electricity supply. The Supreme Court thus concludes that in seeking an authorisation to close a combined-cycle power plant, the ‘double silence’ rule applies to the effect of a presumption of approval.
5 days ago
PUBLICATION
30 Apr, 2026
Pharma & Healthcare No. 48
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
30 Apr, 2026
PUBLICATION
30 Apr, 2026
New customer service and telemarketing numbers
The State Secretariat for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures has published, on 14 April 2016, two decisions: one allocating public numbering resources to customer service and laying down the general terms of use thereof, and the other allocating public numbering resources to telemarketing and laying down the general terms of use thereof.
30 Apr, 2026
PUBLICATION
29 Apr, 2026
Limitation of a patent and the Unified Patent Court’s ‘long arm’
We analyse the problems that arise when a claim is filed with the UPC for infringement of a unitary patent and, at the same time, for infringement of the validation of the basic European patent in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, and the claimant solely limits the unitary patent (because the defendant only files a counterclaim for revocation of the unitary patent with said court, but does not initiate any parallel revocation proceedings with the competent national court against the validations of the basic European patent in States that are not party to said agreement).
29 Apr, 2026
PUBLICATION
27 Apr, 2026
Separate restructuring strategies among joint and several co-debtors
The basis for this paper is a slightly modified real-life case, broadened to include all possible forms of plurality of debtors.
27 Apr, 2026
PUBLICATION
22 Apr, 2026
The new obligation to supply medicines at the request of Member States: analysis of Article56a of the Medicines Directive
Article 56a of the European Union’s new Medicines Directive introduces a mechanism that allows Member States to require marketing authorisation holders to supply authorised medicines within their territory to meet the needs of their patients. In the event of non-compliance three years after the request, the holder may lose market protection in that Member State, thereby allowing the entry of generic and biosimilar medicines. However, exceptions are provided for in cases of exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the holder’s control, as well as safeguards to prevent the loss of protection in one Member State from being used to circumvent the system in other protected markets.
22 Apr, 2026