Can Obelix – the clumsy yet invincible Gaul with a fondness for wild boar – be associated with firearms? The General Court of the European Union held that he cannot. In a judgment delivered in May 2026, the Court sided with the French publishing house Les Éditions Albert René in a dispute linking the iconic comic-book character to the world of weapons, demonstrating just how far the protection afforded to a trade mark with a reputation can extend.
INTRODUCTION
In 2020, a Polish company filed an application for the EU trade mark “Obelix” covering firearms, machine guns, hand grenades, tanks and howitzers. The trade mark was subsequently registered in 2022.
The French publishing house Les Éditions Albert René, proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark “OBELIX”, registered since 1998 for, among other things, games and toys, clothing, books and film production services, challenged the registration by filing an application for a declaration of invalidity. The case proceeded through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and its Board of Appeal, both of which rejected the publisher's application.
The dispute ultimately reached the General Court of the European Union, which has now ruled as follows.
TRADE MARKS WITH A REPUTATION – WHAT ARE THEY?
The standard scope of trade mark protection applies only where the conflicting marks are identical or similar, and the goods or services concerned are likewise identical or similar. Given that, in the present case, the goods covered by the contested trade mark (weapons) were entirely different from the goods and services covered by the earlier trade mark (games, clothing, books and film-related services), the publisher had to rely on the enhanced protection available under EU law to trade marks with a reputation.
The rationale behind this enhanced protection is straightforward. As the General Court reiterated in its judgment, a trade mark is not merely an indicator of the commercial origin of goods or services; it also conveys messages concerning the qualities of a product and the values associated with a brand. A trade mark's reputation is typically the result of substantial effort and investment on the part of its proprietor. For that reason, a trade mark with a reputation is protected against the registration of any identical or similar mark that could adversely affect its image, even where the goods or services covered by the contested mark are dissimilar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered.
However, a proprietor seeking to rely on the enhanced protection afforded to a trade mark with a reputation must first establish the existence of that reputation, usually by means of a broad range of evidence. The proprietor must demonstrate that the trade mark is genuinely well known among the relevant public. In practice, this is typically done through opinion polls and market surveys showing consumer recognition of the mark, commercial data evidencing the duration, extent and geographical scope of its use (such as sales volumes, market share and customer numbers), as well as advertising materials and records of marketing and promotional expenditure.
ASSESSING “OBELIX” AS A STAND-ALONE TRADE MARK
The central issue in the dispute was whether Obelix enjoyed a reputation as a stand-alone trade mark, or only in conjunction with Astérix & Obélix.
The Board of Appeal adopted a strict approach. It found that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating public recognition of the Obelix trade mark on its own, as the vast majority of the evidence submitted related to the designation Astérix & Obélix. According to the Board of Appeal, consumers did not perceive the word Obelix by itself as an indicator of commercial origin, but rather as a reference to the comic-book character. In its view, the evidence therefore established the popularity of Astérix & Obélix as a whole rather than the reputation of Obelix as an independent trade mark.
The General Court, however, disagreed with that assessment.
First, it noted that on many of the products submitted as evidence, the word Obelix appeared together with the registered trade mark symbol ® Where the terms Asterix and Obelix were used jointly, each was accompanied by its own separate ® symbol. For consumers purchasing such products, the presence of the registered trade mark symbol “R” clearly indicates that Obelix is a registered trade mark identifying the commercial origin of the goods.
Second, trade mark law contains no requirement that a trade mark must be shown to have been used exclusively on its own in order to enjoy protection. Two trade marks may be used together without either of them losing its independent legal protection. Accordingly, Obelix is capable of being perceived as a stand-alone trade mark even when used in combination with Asterix, particularly where each term is accompanied by its own ® symbol, signalling that they constitute two distinct registered trade marks, each independently indicating the commercial origin of the goods. The General Court therefore concluded that the Board of Appeal had erred in disregarding evidence of reputation merely because it related to the designation Astérix & Obélix.
DIFFERENT CONSUMERS = NO LINK? NOT SO FAST
The Board of Appeal also examined whether consumers would establish a link between the Polish trade mark and the earlier Obelix trade mark, concluding that they would not. It reasoned that the goods covered by the contested mark were aimed at a highly specialised group of consumers, such as military personnel, hunters, security professionals and law enforcement officers, whereas the goods and services covered by the earlier mark targeted the general public. According to the Board of Appeal, there was no overlap between these two groups of consumers. Furthermore, professionals purchasing firearms and military equipment exercise a particularly high degree of attention when making purchasing decisions. In that specific context, they would therefore be unlikely to associate the characteristics of such products with the character of Obelix, even if they were personally familiar with the comic-book series.
Such an assessment, however, cannot be limited – as the Board of Appeal incorrectly did – merely to identifying differences between the goods and services concerned or to the absence of any overlap between the relevant groups of consumers. The existence of a link must be assessed globally, taking into account all relevant factors, including the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark. The word Obelix is a unique and fanciful term with no descriptive meaning in any language. For many years, it had been used exclusively by the publisher and its authorised licensees. The stronger and more distinctive a trade mark is, the more readily it will be brought to consumers' minds when they encounter a similar sign.
For those reasons, the General Court annulled the contested decision in its entirety.
The dispute may not yet be over, however. A further appeal may be lodged before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court.
