In December 2025, the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued a decision in a long-running dispute over the application for the trademark “GEORGE ORWELL”. At the heart of the dispute is the heirs’ attempt to register the famous writer’s name as a European Union trademark for a wide range of goods and services, including books, films and educational activities. The decision in case no. R 2248/2019-G sends a clear message: fame can paradoxically be a barrier to trademark registration.
Name as a Description of the Content
By an application filed on 6 March 2018, the Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell sought to register the word mark “GEORGE ORWELL”. While the mark has been registered for some goods such as apparel, fashion accessories or toys, it has not been registered for cultural and educational goods and services (books, cultural events, publishing). The main grounds for refusal of registration were the distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) and descriptiveness of the name under Article 7(1)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (the “Regulation”). The EUIPO concluded that for books or cultural activities, the public perceives the designation “GEORGE ORWELL” as information about the content or topic of the work or activity rather than as an indication of the commercial origin (publisher). Under this name, the consumer immediately imagines a product or service that either comes directly from George Orwell, or is about him.
The EUIPO further emphasised that there is a fundamental difference between artistic origin (the author protected by copyright) and commercial origin (the undertaking responsible for marketing), which is protected by trademark law. In the case of literature, it is the publisher who should be identified by the trademark, not the creator of the content.
Under Article 7(2) of the Regulation, it is sufficient to refuse an application if the grounds of non-registrability exist in only part of the Union. The EUIPO focused its assessment on Ireland and Malta, as these are the two EU countries whose official language is English and which are therefore the closest to Orwell culturally. The Board found that “GEORGE ORWELL” would be perceived, at least by the public in Ireland and Malta, as an immediate reference to the author.
What Would Be the Outcome of the Mark’s Registration for Books?
The question is why the heirs sought to register the mark for books and publishing at all. Orwell’s work entered the public domain on 1 January 2021, and since then anyone is free to publish or adapt them. If registered for books, the trademark “GEORGE ORWELL” could provide the owner with a tool to maintain a degree of control over the use of that name in the book sector.
Let us imagine a hypothetical situation: if the EUIPO registered the mark for books and a third party subsequently published a book with a title containing the words “GEORGE ORWELL” (for example, the writer’s biography), could the owner of the mark seek protection and oppose such use? Interestingly, the EUIPO had not acted so strictly in the past. For example, the word mark “VÁCLAV HAVEL” was registered for, inter alia, books and publishing. At least for Czech consumers, Václav Havel is as iconic an author as George Orwell is for the English-speaking public. The EUIPO therefore appears to be gradually tightening its decision-making practice in this respect.
The Paradox of Fame
George Orwell left behind a fascinating legacy. His name gave rise to the adjective “Orwellian” and terms like “Big Brother” and “newspeak”, which have entered the standard English vocabulary. In assessing distinctiveness under Article 7 of the Regulation, fame often plays in favour of the applicant. In this case, however, the effect works in the opposite direction, since the high degree of familiarity of the name leads the public to associate it immediately and unambiguously with a specific historical person – the author – rather than with the commercial origin of goods or services.
However, the mere fact that the name is famous is not in itself an absolute ground for refusal of a trademark application.
The Board has confirmed that there is no blanket prohibition on the registration of famous names as trademarks, but that it is always necessary to assess the specific circumstances of each application.
In the past, the Office and the Board of the EUIPO issued different decisions on the registrability of the names of famous persons. In this context, the Board compared Orwell to other cases:
- Le journal d’Anne Frank: Unlike Anne Frank, who is known for essentially a single autobiographical work, Orwell has a wide-ranging and richly varied canon, making his name a descriptor for a much broader category of content.
- Dr. No: While this fictional character can function as a trademark, Orwell is a historical figure with a social impact such that his name is perceived by the public primarily as a cultural reference.
The decision therefore clarifies how descriptiveness / low distinctiveness is assessed under Article 7 of the Regulation when the designation is a well-known name. This provides further guidance to help prospective applicants better assess their situation before applying. In cases where the public perceives the name as a description of what the services and goods are about (or contain), the designation is descriptive and therefore without distinctiveness. As someone has rightly pointed out, register your name before you’re famous.
Where Did the Heirs Succeed?
Interestingly, the mark “GEORGE ORWELL” was registered for apparel, bags, or political advice. In these areas, indeed, the name does not act as a description of the content, but can act as a brand. So if you buy a T-shirt with the words George Orwell on it, you perceive the name as a brand; with a book, on the other hand, it is just the name of the author or the person the book is about.
The Story Does Not End Here
Orwell’s heirs have appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union, claiming that the decision is null and void. The case is before the General Court, the lower of the two courts, and is currently being heard. We will keep monitoring it.
