In a major decision dated December 19, 2025 (R 2248/2019-G), the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled that the word mark “GEORGE ORWELL” cannot be registered as an EU trade mark (EUTM) for goods and services such as books, films, recorded media, and entertainment, cultural, and educational services. The decision provides important clarification on the registrability of famous persons’ names in cases where such names may be perceived by the relevant public as describing the content or subject matter of the goods and services concerned, rather than their commercial origin.
1. Background
The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell – the estate of George Orwell’s second and final wife – filed an application in March 2018 to register the word mark GEORGE ORWELL as an EUTM for a broad range of goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28, and 41, including recorded media (Class 9), printed matter such as books, magazines and posters (Class 16), and entertainment, cultural, and educational services (Class 41).
In August 2019, the examiner partially refused the application under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) EUTMR, finding that the relevant English-speaking public would perceive the sign merely as an indication of the subject matter of the goods and services – i.e. that they are by or about George Orwell – rather than as an indicator of commercial origin. The applicant appealed.
Given diverging decisions within the Office and the Boards of Appeal on the registrability of names of well-known persons for content-oriented goods and services, the Fifth Board of Appeal referred the case to the Grand Board in July 2020. The International Trademark Association (INTA) submitted written observations, and the EUIPO Executive Director provided comments on questions of general interest.
2. The Grand Board’s assessment under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR
The Grand Board confirmed that “subject matter” or “content” is a recognized subcategory of descriptiveness under the “other characteristics” limb of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR. The Grand Board held that this type of objection can, in principle, only be applied to goods or services which contain information about other matters or refer to them – such as books, magazines, recordings, or training services.
Crucially, the Grand Board endorsed the view that marks consisting of names of famous persons may be perceived by the relevant public as describing the content of the goods and services at issue. A sign can simultaneously be famous for denoting a person and, depending on the nature of the product or service, be descriptive of the content or character of those goods or services.
To determine whether a famous author’s name is descriptive in this sense, the Grand Board identified the following non-exhaustive and non-cumulative criteria:
- fame and recognition of the author;
- widespread use of the author’s works (distribution, adaptations, inclusion in curricula);
- social and cultural integration (prizes, commemorations, street names, public events);
- period for which the author has been known, including persistence of fame long after death;
- derived nouns or adjectives created from the author’s name (e.g. “Orwellian”); and
- market reality (e.g. whether sections of bookshops or libraries are associated with the author).
Applying these criteria, the Grand Board found that “GEORGE ORWELL” would be immediately and unequivocally understood by the relevant public as referring to the well-known British author, and that the contested goods and services would be perceived as being by or about George Orwell, his writings, or the ideas and themes deriving from them. The sign was therefore descriptive for all contested goods and services.
3. The Grand Board’s assessment under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR
Although the finding of descriptiveness was sufficient for refusal, the Grand Board also independently confirmed the mark’s lack of distinctiveness. The sign “GEORGE ORWELL” merely indicates to the relevant public that the goods and services concerned “comprise, concern, or are otherwise linked to the work, life, or personality of George Orwell.” It does not convey a distinctive trademark significance and is incapable of identifying a particular commercial origin.
