Can the name of a famous author be a valid trademark?

Is it possible to register the name of a world-famous author as a trademark, even when the copyright on their works has expired? This is a question that heirs and foundations often ask in order to retain control over the estate. However, the recent decision of the EUIPO's Grand Board of Appeal in the George Orwell case is clear: for books, films, and entertainment, the name of such a celebrity is descriptive of the subject matter and lacks distinctiveness. A trademark registration should not serve to create a perpetual monopoly where copyright ends.

The facts and legal context

The application for the European Union word mark “GEORGE ORWELL” was filed by The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell (the estate of the author's widow). The application sought protection in various classes, including:

• Class 9: Videos, films, and digital media.
• Class 16: Books, printed publications, and magazines.
• Class 41: Entertainment, cultural activities, and educational services.

The EUIPO initially refused registration because the name “George Orwell” would be understood by the relevant public as a description of the content of the goods and services, rather than as an indication of commercial origin (such as a publishing house). The applicant appealed, and the case was referred to the Grand Board of Appeal because of its fundamental importance.

The key question was whether the name of an author whose works are largely in the public domain (since Orwell died in 1950) can serve as a trademark for goods directly related to his literary legacy.

The decision of the Grand Board of Appeal

On 19 December 2025, the Grand Board of Appeal upheld the refusal of the trademark. The decision is based on two absolute grounds for refusal under the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR):

1. Descriptive character (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR): The Board ruled that the name “George Orwell” immediately and without hesitation refers to the famous writer for the relevant public. For books, films, and educational materials, the name describes the subject matter of the goods. Consumers see “George Orwell” on a book and understand it to mean “a book written by or about Orwell,” rather than a brand indicating commercial origin (the publisher).
   Geographical nuance: The Board noted that Orwell is world-famous, but focused specifically on the perception of consumers in Ireland and Malta. Because English is an official language there and there are close cultural ties with the UK, the average consumer there will immediately understand the name ‘George Orwell’ as a reference to the literary subject. For an EU trademark refusal, it is sufficient that this ground exists in part of the Union.
2. Lack of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR): Because the name is purely informative about the content, it cannot function as a distinguishing mark. The name does not guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods, which is the essential function of a trademark.

The Board emphasized that terms such as “Orwellian” have become part of the standard vocabulary used to describe a certain (dystopian) atmosphere or political style, which only reinforces the familiarity and thus the descriptive nature of the name.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is of great importance for intellectual property rights, as it sharpens the distinction between copyright and trademark law .

1. The subject matter doctrine

The decision confirms the so-called subject matter doctrine. A trademark is refused if it describes a characteristic of the product. In the case of books and films, the “content” is an essential characteristic. The Grand Board finds that consumers see an author's name as an indication of artistic origin (who wrote it?), rather than commercial origin (who is marketing it?). As long as the author's name primarily refers to the content or subject matter of the publication, it is descriptive.

2. Copyright vs. trademark law

A crucial point in the reasoning is that trademark law should not be abused to artificially extend the temporary protection of copyright. Copyright on Orwell's works has expired. This means that these works belong to the public domain and may be used freely. Trademark registration could unjustly prevent third parties from using the author's name when exploiting these public domain works.

3. Case studies and nuances

It is interesting that the International Trademark Association (INTA) intervened and warned of legal uncertainty, referring to previous registrations of names such as “Janis Joplin” or “Anne Frank.”.

However, the Grand Chamber clarified that each case must be assessed on its own merits. The difference with Anne Frank, for example, is that Orwell is known for a number of works and specific political ideas that have become embedded in the language, whereas with Anne Frank, the link with one specific diary dominated and the context was different. Fame in itself is not an obstacle, but the perception of that fame as an indication of the content is.

This reasoning is debatable. After all, does it really matter to the average consumer whether an author wrote one masterpiece or twenty? For the time being, however, the EUIPO's position remains that a broad, diverse body of work increases the likelihood of ‘descriptiveness’.

4. No conflict with public order (The ‘Vigeland’ nuance)

An interesting side note in the decision is that the Grand Board dismisses the argument that registering an author's name would be contrary to public policy or morality (Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR). Sometimes there are fears that claiming cultural heritage is a form of “abuse” (referring to the well-known Vigeland-case). However, the Board ruled soberly: not everything is cultural heritage, and the commercial exploitation of a famous name is not in itself shocking or immoral. The refusal is therefore based purely on the fact that the name describes the content, not because it would be “unethical” to do so.

What this specifically means

This decision has direct consequences for various parties in the creative sector:

• For estates and foundations: It is becoming considerably more difficult to monopolize the names of famous deceased authors or artists as trademarks for their core products (books, films, documentaries). You may still be able to protect the name for merchandising (mugs, clothing—classes that were not appealed here), but for cultural content, the threshold is very high.
• For publishers and producers: This ruling provides legal certainty when using works in the public domain. You can freely use the name of an author such as George Orwell to describe the content of a book or film (for example: “The complete works of George Orwell” or “A documentary about Orwell”) without fear of trademark infringement, provided that this use is fair and does not suggest that there is an official connection with the heirs when there is none.
• For trademark owners: Be aware that as a name or concept becomes more widely known and ‘generalized’ (such as ‘Orwellian’), the scope of protection as a trademark diminishes.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Do the heirs or the foundation of an author have priority in registration?
No, in trademark law, family ties or the administration of an estate do not take precedence. The Grand Board explicitly ruled that the identity of the applicant is irrelevant for the assessment of absolute grounds for refusal, such as descriptiveness. The fact that the applicant is the official ‘Estate’ does not make the name any less descriptive of the content of a book in the eyes of the consumer. Trademark law serves the public interest in keeping signs free, not the private interests of the heirs.

Does this mean that the name “George Orwell” can no longer be protected as a trademark for any product?
No, the refusal applies specifically to goods that have ‘content’, such as books, films, and games. For other products, such as clothing or tableware, the name can often serve as a trademark because it does not describe the content. The heirs have therefore split off the application for these categories (including class 25) and successfully registered them.

What is the difference between copyright and trademark law in this context?
Copyright protects the creative work itself (the text of the book) and is temporary (usually until 70 years after death). Trademark law protects the name as an indication of origin and can last forever (if renewed). The EUIPO wants to prevent trademark law from being used to block the “freedom” of the public domain after copyright expires.

Conclusion

The decision in the George Orwell case is an important confirmation that cultural heritage and the public domain cannot simply be monopolized through trademark law. For legal practice in Belgium, this means that applications for names of celebrities must be prepared with extreme care, with a realistic view of the goods and services for which protection is sought.