Go back to News
NEWS
GA_P represents INTERPORC, PROVACUNO, INTEROVIC, ASICI, AVIANZA and INTERCUN in the lawsuit against Foods for Tomorrow
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!
Tipology
Deal
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
5 days ago
A foreign judicial authority cannot supplant the will of a Spanish company’s shareholders
The will of a Spanish company’s shareholders in general meeting may not be supplanted by a judge or court clerk, even if the latter is part of another State’s judicature and is acting within the framework of foreign proceedings and in accordance with applicable procedural law.
PUBLICATION
28 May, 2025
Creditors with standing to sue or be sued for termination of contracts under a pre-insolvency restructuring plan
Notes on Articles 618, 619 and 620 of the Insolvency (Recast) Act 2022,
PUBLICATION
22 May, 2025
CJEU clarifies conditions under which EU law may prohibit national tax exemptions
For the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, a tax exemption based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and integrated into the logic of the legal system which it accompanies is inherent in the ‘normal’ tax regime and does not, in principle, confer a selective advantage. In such cases, the conditions for granting the exemption are neutral from the point of view of competition, as the fact that some undertakings satisfy those conditions, while others do not, is not relevant in the light of the rules on State aid.
PUBLICATION
21 May, 2025
Modification of concession when concessionaire no longer has in-housestatus: the CJEU clarifies when a new award procedure is not required
The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29 April 2025 addresses the modification of public contracts originally awarded to an in-house entity which, during performance of the contracts, has lost such status. The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute concerning the extension of concession contracts relating to service facilities ancillary to motorways to include the construction, maintenance and operation of fast-charging infrastructure.
PUBLICATION
20 May, 2025
Royal Decree 214/2025: obligation to calculate carbon footprints, draw up emission reduction plans and publicly disclose the same
Royal Decree 214/2025 does not create a new register, as its title suggests, but rather keeps and expands the one in place since 2014. What is truly new is the obligation imposed on specific companies and public bodies to calculate their carbon footprint and to draw up greenhouse gas emission reduction plans, as well as to publish the same. The royal decree’s succinct wording raises some questions of interpretation.
PUBLICATION
16 May, 2025
Secured creditor class in the approval of a pre-insolvency restructuring plan
Elucidating certain matters relating to the membership of the secured creditor class(es) in Book II of the Insolvency (Recast) Act.
PUBLICATION
14 May, 2025
Permanent incapacity, except if employee decides otherwise or if an excessive burden on employer, no longer triggers termination of contract
The obligation to accommodate the workplace for persons with a permanent incapacity has come to the fore with such incapacity no longer constituting an automatic termination-of-employment-contract event. Now, unless the employee intends otherwise, the employer has three months to make necessary adjustments or to offer a suitable vacant post, and a failure to do so that is not justified on the grounds of excessive burden means not only a breach of law with all its consequences, but also the continuation of the employer/employee relationship with all its consequences.
PUBLICATION
12 May, 2025
Automotive and Sustainable Mobility No. 26
Summary of legislative and case law developments in the automotive sector.
PUBLICATION
16 Apr, 2025
Pharma & Healthcare No. 43
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.