The Pasapalabra Case

The Pasapalabra Case

Can a game mechanic become an asset protected by copyright?

The Spanish Supreme Court has recently answered this question in the affirmative in one of the most significant decisions of recent years concerning audiovisual formats. Its ruling on “El Rosco”, the final round of Pasapalabra, confirms that a television format may be protected under copyright law where it constitutes an original and sufficiently defined creation.

Beyond its media impact, the decision represents an important precedent for the legal protection of audiovisual formats in Spain and reinforces the importance of intangible assets within the creative economy.

The origin of the dispute: Who owns the rights to “El Rosco”?

The proceedings before the Spanish Supreme Court were not concerned with determining ownership of the television quiz show Pasapalabra itself. Rather, the dispute focused on a much narrower issue: the ownership of the copyright in “El Rosco”, the final round that has become the programme’s defining feature.

This distinction is legally significant. Although both elements form part of the same television programme, the litigation was not concerned with the overall format of the show, but with whether one of its individual rounds constitutes an autonomous work protected under the Spanish Copyright Act and, consequently, who is entitled to authorise its exploitation.

To understand the dispute, it is necessary to look at the origins of the format. Pasapalabra derives from the British quiz show The Alphabet Game, the international rights to which are owned by ITV Studios. However, the final round known as “El Rosco” was incorporated into the format at a later stage and constitutes a distinct element of the original programme. It is precisely this distinctive feature that gave rise to the dispute between MC&F Broadcasting Production and Distribution C.V. (“MC&F”), Atresmedia and ITV Studios.

During the proceedings, MC&F argued that “El Rosco” constituted an original creation whose exploitation rights belonged to it, whereas Atresmedia and ITV maintained that the final round could not be regarded as an independently protected work or, in any event, challenged MC&F’s claimed ownership. Accordingly, the dispute did not concern the broadcasting of Pasapalabra itself, but rather the use of one of its best-known rounds.

Ultimately, the Spanish Supreme Court upheld in full the judgment delivered by the Barcelona Provincial Court, recognising that “El Rosco” constitutes a copyright-protected work and that ownership of the relevant rights belongs to MC&F. Consequently, it confirmed the order requiring Atresmedia to cease exploiting the round without the authorisation of the copyright holder.

Are television formats protected by copyright in Spain?

The Spanish Copyright Act does not protect ideas, concepts or the abstract rules of a game. It has long been accepted in both legal scholarship and case law that ideas belong to the public domain and may be freely used by anyone. What copyright protects is the concrete and original expression of those ideas.

This principle is particularly relevant in the field of audiovisual formats. A television game show may share common features with other programmes, questions, challenges, elimination stages or scoring systems, without necessarily infringing copyright. Protection arises only where the particular combination of those elements amounts to an original creation reflecting the author’s free and creative choices.

This is precisely the approach adopted by the Spanish Supreme Court in relation to “El Rosco”. The Court confirmed that the final round constitutes a copyright-protected work because it is a sufficiently developed, structured and complex format rather than a mere game concept. It also held that the format satisfies the originality requirement because it incorporates creative choices reflected both in its configuration and in the way it operates.

This approach is consistent with the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Infopaq International A/S (Case C‑5/08), the CJEU held that copyright protection extends only to works that constitute the author’s own intellectual creation.

Building on that principle, the Court further clarified that even part of a work may enjoy protection where it contains elements expressing the author’s own intellectual creation.

It is important, however, not to overstate the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court did not hold that all television formats are protected by copyright. Rather, it applied the originality test to the specific circumstances of “El Rosco” and concluded that the format exceeds the threshold required under the Spanish Copyright Act. In other words, the judgment does not create a new category of protected works; it simply confirms that a television format may qualify for copyright protection where it constitutes a sufficiently defined original creation.

This clarification is particularly significant for the audiovisual industry. Legal protection does not depend on whether a creation is labelled as a “television format”, but on whether it embodies an original expression capable of individualisation. In that respect, the Pasapalabra case illustrates how the general principles of copyright law can be applied to new creative assets without altering the traditional criteria for protection.

What does the Pasapalabra case teach us about licensing and the protection of formats?

The Supreme Court’s judgment extends far beyond the television industry and highlights the growing importance of intangible assets within the creative economy. The Pasapalabra case demonstrates that a format may constitute an asset of considerable legal and commercial value, provided that it satisfies the originality requirements laid down by copyright law.

The judgment also underlines the importance of clearly defining ownership of rights and properly regulating their exploitation through licensing agreements. In industries such as the audiovisual sector, where different stakeholders may hold rights in different components of the same product, a clear definition of the subject matter and scope of the licence is essential to prevent future disputes.

However, the key lesson arising from this decision is that not every television format will qualify for copyright protection. Protection depends on whether the format constitutes a sufficiently developed original creation rather than a mere idea or abstract concept. In this respect, the judgment does not establish a new category of protected works but reaffirms a fundamental principle of copyright law: what is protected is not the underlying idea, but the original manner in which that idea is expressed.

Ultimately, the Pasapalabra case represents an important precedent for the creative and audiovisual industries, reminding businesses that innovation must not only be developed but also protected through an appropriate intellectual property strategy and effective management of exploitation rights.