Mr David Daura

David Daura

Lawyer biography

Training
David completed a postgraduate course on Civil and Criminal Law at the Barcelona Bar Association’s School of Legal Practice in 2014.
 
Graduate in Law from Barcelona Autonomous University (UAB) in 2013.
 
Professional Experience
David joined Grau & Angulo in 2014.
 
From 2012 to 2014 David worked as an articled clerk and later as criminal lawyer with the office Atienza Advocats.
 
Publications
In 2016 he won first prize in the Amadeu Martistany Oratory Competition with his arguments on the probative value of whatsapp emoticons.
 
Areas of Practice
Anti-piracy and criminal law on trade marks.
 
Languages
Spanish, English and Catalan.
 
Professional Associations
Member of the Barcelona Bar Association.
 

Updates

Intellectual Property

Criminal sentence for importers of shoes which infringed adidas trademarks and designs
Spain | 29 April 2019

The Valencia Court of Appeal, acting as a trial court, recently sentenced two defendants to one-and-a-half years in prison for importing thousands of pairs of counterfeit shoes for commercial purposes. The court also ordered the defendants to pay a fine, procedural costs and damages and destruction costs. This is one of the first judgments to be issued by an appeal court acting as a trial court in an IP criminal case.

Criminal sentence for importers of counterfeit t-shirts
Spain | 30 July 2018

The Zaragoza Court of Appeal recently issued a ruling confirming a trial court judgment which had sentenced two defendants for importing several thousand counterfeit t-shirts from China. In their appeal against the trial court's condemnatory judgment, the defendants had argued that the trial court erred in assessing the evidence, that there had been a break in the custody chain of the seized goods, that one of the defendants had not participated in the importation and that there had been no consumer error.

Criminal sentence handed down for sale of counterfeit shoes
Spain | 21 May 2018

The Barcelona Court of Appeal recently dismissed the writ of appeal filed by an online seller of counterfeit shoes against a trial court judgment, confirming the judgment in its entirety. Notably, the trial court had applied the damages criterion provided for in Article 43.2.b of the Trademark Act as opposed to that provided for in Article 43.2.a, which is more commonly applied in criminal cases and comprises the profits which a trademark owner would have made had a counterfeiting offence not occurred.