Daniel Basañez Bordas. Consultant | Trademarks & Brand Intelligence Area

Can the names of historical figures, famous authors or prominent personalities be registered as trademarks? This is the substantive issue under consideration in the Grand Board of Appeal’s decision of 19 December 2025, partially refusing the word mark ‘GEORGE ORWELL’, applied for by the body managing the estate of Sonia Brownell Orwell (The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell) and administering the legacy of Eric Arthur Blair, more commonly known by his pseudonym George Orwell.

The decision, which is not without controversy, raises an issue that is more complex than it might appear at first sight. We know for certain that peoples’ names can be registered as trade marks and be considered distinctive, even in the case of the most common surnames such as “Garcia” or “Jones”. Even the names of prominent personalities, such as the name of a head of state, may be perfectly registered as a trade mark.

However, there are some nuances: for example, in relation to common names, access to registration could be refused where the name could also be perceived as a non-distinctive term in relation to the goods or services concerned (e.g. “Tailor” for tailoring services). In this context, the names of famous people (in particular, artists, writers, musicians or composers) may indicate the category of the goods — and consequently be considered descriptive and not distinctive — if, as a result of their widespread use, the passage of time, their popularisation, recognition or other similar factors, the public perceives them as generic names.

For example, the terms “Shakespeare”, “Hitchcock” or “George Orwell” are perfectly capable of constituting distinctive trade marks in relation to goods such as paints, clothing or pencils. However, they lack the capacity to play a distinctive role in relation to, inter alia, products such as books or films. At least this has been the criterion of the Grand Board of Appeal in the latest chapter of this long story.

However, the more astute may say that the Decision of 15 May 2018 (R 2382/2017-2) “SIBELIUS” was a spoiler of this last chapter, as the EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal ruled that the trade mark “SIBELIUS” applied for would be perceived by the EU public as the surname of the famous Finnish composer Jean Sibelius. This decision, used by the Grand Board of Appeal in support of the refusal of the GEORGE ORWELL trade mark, held that ‘Sibelius’ was a descriptive term devoid of distinctive character for some of the goods and services applied for, inter alia, music-related services or even for the broader category of entertainment services.

Regarding the content of the decision of 19 December, the Grand Chamber refused, on the basis of Articles 7(1)(c) (descriptive character) and 7(1)(b) (lack of distinctive character) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), the trade mark GEORGE ORWELL for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41 (among others, the following can be mentioned): DVDs, podcasts, films, cartoons, photographs, books, printed matter, magazines, newspapers, entertainment, cultural activities, educational services, etc.).

As for the application of Article 7(1)(c), relating to the descriptiveness of a trade mark as a ground for refusal, the Grand Chamber noted that the fact that the EU lawmaker had chosen to use the phrase “or other characteristic” in that article shows that the prohibition is limited to signs which directly describe a quality or property of the goods or services in question, so that the relevant public can readily and immediately identify them as a property of those goods or services.

Therefore, in this case the Grand Chamber applied the prohibition of Article 7(1)(c) to the contested goods and services on the basis that the relevant public (only Ireland and Malta, because of the “linguistic and cultural link” with the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the impact of Orwell’s work worldwide) would identify the sign “GEORGE ORWELL” unequivocally and immediately with the famous British writer, his works or the ideas and themes deriving therefrom as the subject matter of those goods and services. Therefore, the Grand Chamber understands that where an author is of the stature of George Orwell, a sign consisting of his name may be perceived as descriptive of the content or character of the goods or services for which it is used.

However, a dark cloud looms behind the above reasoning: To what extent will it be possible to interpret the sign as being perceived by the public as descriptive of the content of the goods or services in question? When will a consumer be able to link a business origin to the name and when not?

The trade mark applicant, as well as the International Trademark Association (INTA) (which submitted observations as a third party), brought to light the existence of the decisions of the EUIPO Board of Appeal granting, for example, the trade mark “JANIS JOPLIN” (24/03/2015, R 2292/2014-4) for “CDs” or “DVDs” or “downloadable sound recordings” or “Le journal d’ Anne Frank” (31/08/2015, R 2401/2014-4) for, inter alia, “books”. The applicant also brought up the granting of European Union trade marks for names of authors of the stature of the British author such as “F. SCOTT FITZGERALD” (EUTM No 15433519), “ALBERT CAMUS” (EUTM No 11 832 458) for “books”, among other goods and services.

In these confusing circumstances, the Grand Chamber lists a number of parameters to determine when the public will recognise an author’s name on the sign and perceive it as descriptive of the content of the goods/services for which it is used:

• Fame and recognition of the author
• Widespread use of the author’s work
• Level of presence at a cultural and social level
• Period during which the author has been recognised
• Nouns or adjectives created from the author’s name (e.g. “Orwellian”, “Dantesque”, “Kafkaesque”).
• Market reality

Therefore, it seems that the application of Article 7(1)(c) in cases of this type responds not only to an analysis based on the fame or recognition that a person may achieve, but also to a series of criteria that go beyond this, such as the impact that the person has had on popular culture or other perhaps somewhat diffuse assessments.

In particular, in relation to ANNE FRANK, the Grand Chamber highlighted the different cultural projection of the authors compared: while Anne Frank is known for a single work, George Orwell is recognised as one of the key literary figures of the first half of the 20th century. His fame transcends his own works, to the extent that there is an abundant bibliographical production dedicated both to his person and to his literary legacy.

In relation to Article 7(1)(b) the Grand Chamber held that the sign ’GEORGE ORWELL’ is devoid of any distinctive character, as it merely indicates to the relevant public that the goods and services in question comprise, refer to or are in some way connected with the work, life or personality of George Orwell. For this reason, the sign is unable to fulfil the essential function of a trade mark: to identify the business origin of certain goods or services.

That being said, this raises many questions and uncertainties in those sectors or industries where it is necessary to register the names of famous people, such as art, literature, music, cinema, etc. The International Trademark Association (INTA) has already expressed its concern in its third-party observations, warning that the validity (and the enforceability against third parties) of the large number of registered trademarks consisting of the name of famous persons could be compromised (this could be the case, for example, of the trademarks “ALBERT CAMUS”, “F. SCOTT FITZGERALD” or other similar marks).

We will see how the issue evolves, which promises new chapters in the not too distant future (in addition to those we already have pending in relation to the trademark applications ’1984’ and ’Animal Farm’).