The General Court of the European Union rules: the transfer of the “Diego Maradona” trademark is refused

On November 7, the General Court of the European Union confirmed the refusal of the EUIPO to register the transfer of the European trademark “Diego Maradona” in favor of the company Sattvica.

Sattvica is a company registered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, owned by Diego Armando Maradona's former lawyer.

The events that led to the denial of the assignment were as follows:

In January 2021, after the soccer player's death, Sativa, considering that the Argentinian star's brands had been transferred to him, proceeded to request that the EUIPO register the transfer. As proof that the transfer had taken place at the will of Maradona, Sattvica provided two documents: an authorization for the commercial exploitation of trademarks dated December 26, 2015 and an agreement authorizing the use of marks that had no date.

The EUIPO registered this transfer of registration to, at the request of Maradona's heirs, proceed to cancel it later by a resolution of March 2022, considering the documents provided insufficient as they did not formally justify a transfer of the trademark to Sattvica.

Sattvica then proceeded to make a second request on February 3, 2021, which, despite being initially registered, was again invalidated after the allegations of the heirs.

After this second registration correction, Sattvica appealed against the decision, requesting that the second registration request be considered. That appeal was denied and Sattvica decided to challenge the decision before the General Court.

However, the General Court aligned itself with the arguments of the EUIPO, stating that, despite the fact that the document indicated that there was a capacity to dispose and exploit, these documents do not sufficiently justify that an assignment had occurred for the purposes of Article 20 of Regulation 2017/1001, nor had it been invoked by Sattvica before the Board of Appeal that there had been a judgment in his favor that could justify the assignment.

Consequently, the General Court proceeded to deny Sattvica's claims since, in addition, there was no possibility of remedy due to the death of the football player, confirming once again how essential it is to comply with all formal requirements when drafting a contract.