The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has released a landmark decision from the Grand Board of Appeal (19 December 2025), regarding the refusal to register the word mark “GEORGE ORWELL”. This decision serves as a crucial reminder for businesses and creators: certain names are so culturally significant that they must remain free for public use.
Literary legacy vs. trademark function
In 2018, the late spouse of George Orwell had filed an application, seeking to register the sign “GEORGE ORWELL” as a European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) for goods and services including books, films, and publications.
In trademark law, a sign must serve as an indicator of origin—it tells the consumer who made the product. However, under Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), a sign is ineligible for registration if it is descriptive (describing a characteristic or the content of the goods) or devoid of distinctive character, meaning the public does not perceive it as a mark able to distinguish one undertaking from another.
On the basis of the above-mentioned provisions, the examiner contested the sign for part of the goods and services. He argued that for books, films or publications especially, the sign “GEORGE ORWELL” would be understood by consumers as an indication of the subject matter (i.e., a book about or by Orwell) rather than a specific commercial brand—in this situation, it will not be seen as an “indicator of origin for publications, information, cultural activities, film, exhibitions, etc”.
The Grand Board validated the considerations of the examiner, and added that copyright and trademark laws must not be conflated; the status of a work in the public domain under copyright law is irrelevant to the assessment of a sign’s distinctiveness and non-descriptiveness as a trademark.
Understanding the principle of specialty
In response to the refusal, the applicant argued that reputation of a name does not automatically mean that a sign with the same name is devoid of distinctive character. The applicant cited the example of “Anne Frank,” though this was deemed irrelevant as it referred specifically to a title (“Le Journal d’Anne Frank”).
A more compelling comparison, to demonstrate that famous names can possess distinctiveness, is the “Picasso” signature. In the late 20th century, Pablo Picasso’s heirs successfully registered his signature as a trademark, even licensing it to Citroën for a line of automobiles. In this situation, no natural link could existe between the painter and the Citroën’s vehicles, whereas the “GEORGE ORWELL” sign specifically targeted books, films, and publications.
For the relevant public, the name does not point to a commercial mark, but to the subject matter itself, as noted above. Much like the term “Orwellian,” the name has become so synonymous with his political philosophy that using it for books is seen as descriptive information, not a trademark. Thus, while a famous name can be a trademark for unrelated goods—like Picasso for cars—, it remains free for all to use when it describes the essence of the product itself.
A landmark referral: the grand board and the global stakes for historical names
Following an appeal in 2019, the Fifth Board of Appeal sent a communication to the applicant maintaining the examiner’s objections regarding the sign’s descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness. The applicant’s subsequent observations offered no new material elements to challenge the examiner’s findings. The Fifth Board then referred the case to the Grand Board by emphasising that a famous name, in this context, is primarily perceived as information regarding the content or subject matter of the goods rather than a source-indicator.
The significance of the case drew the attention of the International Trademark Association (INTA), which submitted written observations following the publication in the Official Journal of the Office of the referral to the Grand Board. INTA focused specifically on the nuanced factors that shape the perception of the “relevant consumer” when encountering the names of historical figures in the marketplace.
How celebrity status can impair the recognition of a trademark
Finally, the Grand Board of Appeal ultimately upheld the examiner’s refusal, confirming that the sign “GEORGE ORWELL” is descriptive for the contested goods and services, because it signals to the public that the products concern the life or works of the author, rather than originating from a specific commercial undertaking. Furthermore, to justify the lack of distinctiveness of the sign, the Board utilised several criteria: the author’s fame and recognition; the widespread use of his works; his deep social and cultural integration; the period for which the author has been known; the enduring nature of his legacy and the creation of derivative terms (e.g., “Orwellian”); as well as the prevailing market reality.
The Board clarified that famous names do not face a “higher threshold” for registration compared to other signs, conversely to what the applicant argued, but their cultural weight often makes them descriptive of a product’s content.
Conclusion
To conclude, an applicant may register a famous name as a trademark, provided it fulfills the cumulative requirementsof non-descriptiveness and distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR. Failure to meet these standards will lead to a refusal by the examiner on absolute grounds for all or part of the goods and services targeted during the application process.
Those considerations must remain clear to businesses and creators: while an applicant seeks to secure a monopoly through registration, trademark law must safeguard the public interest. By refusing exclusivity over descriptive or non-distinctive signs, the Grand Board ensures that any term, name, or indication designating a characteristic of the goods or services remains available for free use by all. This principle of trademark law prevents the creation of private monopolies over language or cultural references that the public must be able to use without restraint.
Written by Av. Paul Radmilli and Lou-Salomé Wang
