Go back to News
NEWS
GA_P advises Giochi Preziosi on the acquisition of Muñecas Arias
GA_P has advised the Italian toy company Giochi Preziosi, which is already the leader in Spain in manufacturing and sales after acquiring Famosa in 2019, on the acquisition of another historic Spanish brand, the Alicante-based company Muñecas Arias. With this acquisition, the group strengthens its position in the dolls category at European level.
The Giochi Preziosi Group, an Italian multinational with more than 40 years of history, is currently one of the largest European players in the traditional toy industry.
Advised on the transaction: Pablo Fernández Cortijo, partner of Commercial, Mónica Ojeda, associate of Commercial, Mònica Montoro, PMA of Commercal, Lourdes Escassi, Of Counsel of Employment, Delia Castaños, Jesús Tallos, associates of Employment, Silvana Zarzar, associate of Employment, Isabela Crespo, associate of Industrial, Intellectual Property and Technology Elisa Gómez-Bernardo, associate of Industrial, Intellectual Property and Technology, Marta Rey and Ester Abascal, associates of public law.
The Giochi Preziosi Group, an Italian multinational with more than 40 years of history, is currently one of the largest European players in the traditional toy industry.
Advised on the transaction: Pablo Fernández Cortijo, partner of Commercial, Mónica Ojeda, associate of Commercial, Mònica Montoro, PMA of Commercal, Lourdes Escassi, Of Counsel of Employment, Delia Castaños, Jesús Tallos, associates of Employment, Silvana Zarzar, associate of Employment, Isabela Crespo, associate of Industrial, Intellectual Property and Technology Elisa Gómez-Bernardo, associate of Industrial, Intellectual Property and Technology, Marta Rey and Ester Abascal, associates of public law.
Lawyer mentioned
Pablo Fernández Cortijo – Partner
Lourdes Escassi – Counsel
See all lawyers
See less lawyers
Tipology
Deal
Areas and sectors
Press contact
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Warning: Undefined array key 2 in /app/wp-content/plugins/wpml-media-translation/classes/class-wpml-media-attachment-by-url-query.php on line 99
Warning: Undefined array key 2 in /app/wp-content/plugins/wpml-media-translation/classes/class-wpml-media-attachment-by-url-query.php on line 163
Warning: Undefined array key 10 in /app/wp-content/plugins/wpml-media-translation/classes/class-wpml-media-attachment-by-url-query.php on line 163
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
PUBLICATION
01 Oct, 2025
Contractual termination by mutual abandonment not claimed by any party?
The risks of applying the doctrine according to which a contract is deemed withdrawn from if neither party to the same appears to want it. Not only is this solution likely to be inconsistent with the parties' claims, but it also wrongly rules out other civil law options the parties could pursue upon dismissal of the action for declaration of termination.
PUBLICATION
25 Sep, 2025
Pharma & Healthcare No. 45
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
PUBLICATION
19 Sep, 2025
The Unified Patent Court grants interim relief regarding a European patent validated in Spain: critical considerations
The Decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court dated 14 August 2025 grants interim relief because it claims jurisdiction to hear the substance of the matter (both the infringement of the unitary patent in the States party to the UPC Agreement and the Spanish validation of the European patent on which the unitary patent is based). To this end, the court offers a series of observations on its international jurisdiction, not all of which are accurate.
PUBLICATION
15 Sep, 2025
The Unified Patent Court takes jurisdiction to hear a claim concerning the infringement of the UK national part of a European patent, even when the validity of the patent is being disputed
In a decision dated 18 July 2025, the Mannheim Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court took jurisdiction to hear a claim filed against three companies domiciled in Germany for infringement of a classic European patent with effect in Germany and the United Kingdom. The court's jurisdiction to hear the infringement of the UK national part of European patents is not affected by the fact that the validity of the patent is disputed by the defendants. However, this conclusion does not apply to Spanish national parts of European patents.
PUBLICATION
01 Sep, 2025
Denomination of a plant variety and descriptive use of a third-party trade mark
There is no doubt that the registered name of a plant variety may be used by anyone who markets plant material of that variety. However, in this specific case, the Supreme Court's statement that “the term ‘Persimmon’ was used by the defendant to identify a specific variety of caqui” is noteworthy.
PUBLICATION
05 Aug, 2025
Automotive and Sustainable Mobility No. 27
Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.
PUBLICATION
30 Jul, 2025
Absolute prohibitions on pharmacy advertising are contrary to EU law
In its judgment of 19 June 2025 (European Commission v Republic of Poland, C‑200/24, ECLI:EU:C:2025:459), the Court of Justice has held that the introduction by national legislation of a total prohibition on advertising for pharmacies infringes European Union law.
PUBLICATION
29 Jul, 2025
The use of personal data to train artificial intelligence systems
The judgment of the Regional High Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Cologne of 23 May 2025 (15 UKl 2/25), in which the German court rejects the application for interim relief prohibiting the defendant from processing personal data published by consumers on Facebook and Instagram for the development and improvement of artificial intelligence systems, is analysed.
PUBLICATION
21 Jul, 2025
Key points on ‘reasonable adjustments’ due to worker incapacity
The declaration of the worker's incapacity does not automatically terminate the contract, unless the worker expresses his or her wish not to continue working. But permanent absolute incapacity and severe incapacity are incompatible with work. For the rest, the worker has (an extinguishment?) period of ten days to decide and the employer has (an extinguishment?) period of thirty days to decide. Companies with less than 25 employees can assess when the obligation is an excessive burden, but the rest is left to numerous factors, not always objectively measurable. The company must provide a suitable offer without knowing what this suitability depends on.