“Animal Farm” and “1984”: The EUIPO Grand Board Clarifies the Limits of Trademark Protection for Work Titles

The registration applications covered the titles of two of the 20th century’s most famous works, George Orwell’s *Animal Farm* and *1984*, for various goods and services falling primarily under classes 9, 16, 28, and 41: audiovisual media, printed matter, games, as well as educational, entertainment, and cultural activity services.

The dispute arose because the EUIPO examiner had found that the signs applied for were descriptive and lacked distinctiveness for some of the goods and services covered. However, the refusal was only partial and did not apply to all of the goods and services claimed. Following appeals filed by the applicants, the Grand Board of Appeal was called upon to rule on an issue that had been the subject of differing interpretations for several years.

• A key question: Can the title of a famous literary work be reused to create a trademark in light of the distinctiveness requirement?

The question before the Grand Chamber can be stated simply: Is a world-famous title perceived by the public as an indication of commercial origin, or merely as a reference to the content of a product or service?

This case is set against a particularly rich body of case law. Debates regarding the protection of work titles and fictional characters have already given rise to several notable decisions, notably concerning Superman or, more recently, Obélix (Les Éditions Albert René v. WORKS 11 MICHAŁ LUBIŃSKIT-24/25). These cases illustrate the difficulty of reconciling the principles of copyright law with those of trademark law.

The issue is all the more delicate given that the titles *Animal Farm* and *1984* have far outgrown the scope of their original works. *1984*, in particular, has become a universal cultural reference that is regularly used to comment on or criticize current events.

The decisions were primarily reviewed in light of the absolute grounds for refusal set forth in Article 7 of the European Union Trademark Regulation:

• Article 7(1)(b), concerning the lack of distinctiveness;
• Article 7(1)(c), concerning the descriptive nature of the sign.

The Grand Chamber notes that’a sign is descriptive when’there is a sufficiently direct and concrete link between the sign and the characteristics of the goods or services at issue, such that the relevant public can immediately perceive information about their nature, purpose, or content.

It is precisely this analysis that is adopted in this case.

For goods in Classes 9 and 16 (audiovisual media, books, publications, printed matter), consumers will naturally perceive the signs “Animal Farm” and “1984” as an indication of the goods’ content. The same reasoning applies to games in Class 28 and to educational, entertainment, and cultural activity services in Class 41, which are likely to relate directly to these works or be inspired by them.

In other words, for these products and services, the titles inform the public about the theme or subject matter rather than the commercial origin of the offering.

• The reputation of’a title is not sufficient to confer distinctiveness upon it:

The main contribution of the decision lies in its analysis of the distinctiveness of famous titles.

In paragraph 74 of its decision, the Grand Chamber finds that the signs “Animal Farm” and “1984” will be perceived by consumers primarily as the well-known titles of George Orwell’s works or as a reference to them. Consequently, they do not fulfill the essential function of a trademark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods and services.

The Board concludes that the signs lack distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.

This position appears to be particularly consistent with the logic of trademark law. A world-famous title may, in fact, lose its ability to be perceived as an indicator of ’origin when it is primarily identified by the public as a cultural work.

• A long-awaited decision that is far from settling the debate:

The decision, which has been awaited for more than five years, underscores the complexity of the issue. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber back in 2020.

Far from putting an end to the debate, this decision highlights its full complexity. It serves as a reminder that titles of works are not, as a matter of principle, excluded from protection under trademark law. Their validity, however, depends on the public’s perception of the claimed goods and services.

For those in the cultural industries, the lesson is clear: the protection of a famous title cannot be based solely on the work’s reputation. A genuine branding strategy remains necessary to demonstrate that the sign will be perceived as an indicator of commercial origin and not merely as a cultural reference.

The Grand Chamber even goes so far as to raise the possibility of action by the European legislature to consider a specific regime for the protection of titles of works.

The Animal Farm and 1984 rulings are therefore an essential reference for all practitioners dealing with the registration of titles of works, characters, or famous cultural universes.

These decisions confirm that’in trademark matters, the reputation of’a work’s’is not necessarily an asset: it can also become an obstacle…

Alexandre Nogueira Perreira

Pierre Favilli