Descriptive trade name and likelihood of confusion: how to protect your business name in the face of competition?

A trade name emerges through its first public use, without the need for registration. But what if your chosen name is purely descriptive, such as “Doctor's House”? In a judgment dated Oct. 15, 2025, the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that even well-established, descriptive names enjoy only a minimal scope of protection. A competitor who uses a variant (for example, the Latin translation of the place name) does not necessarily infringe as a result.

The facts: a medical practice split in two

The dispute arose after a rift between partners of the bv Doktershuis Antwerpen. Some former partners established a new company, called Doktershuis Antverpia, and settled just 1.5 kilometers from the original practice.

The original practice (Doktershuis Antwerpen) felt that the new name “Doktershuis Antverpia” was too similar to their trade name. They argued that this, combined with the identical medical activities and geographic proximity, led to unacceptable confusion among patients. They sought a cease-and-desist order for infringement of their trade name rights and unfair market practices.

Court of Appeal decision

The Antwerp Court of Appeal had to rule on the thin line between protection and free competition. The ruling contains three main pillars:

1. The term “Doctor's House” is trite: The Court confirmed that “Doctor's House” is a merely descriptive name for a medical center. Such banal names have little distinctiveness and therefore enjoy only minimal scope of protection.
2. Protection through integration: Although “Doktershuis Antwerpen” is descriptive, the Court held that this particular combination did acquire distinctiveness (incorporation) through prolonged and intensive use. Thus, the new practice was not allowed to use the exact name “Doktershuis Antwerpen”.
3. No infringement by “Antverpia”: The crucial issue was whether “Doktershuis Antverpia” infringed on “Doktershuis Antwerpen.” The court ruled that it did not. Because the original name is weak and descriptive, a slight variation is sufficient to avoid confusion. The addition of “Antverpia” (Latin for Antwerp) and a visually different logo were sufficient to eliminate the risk of confusion.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling offers an interesting perspective on the operation of Article 8 of the Paris Union Treaty in Belgian jurisprudence.

1. The autonomous protection of the trade name

Unlike a trademark, a trade name does not need to be registered. Protection arises from the first public, visible and continuous use. The Court here reiterates the established principle that the trade name enjoys autonomous protection independent of corporate law formalities.

2. The paradox of the descriptive name

The trademark law sets high requirements for distinctiveness, but trade name law is more flexible. A trade name does not have to be original; even banal names can be protected.

However, the flip side of that coin is the scope of protection. As the Court states: “Banal wording, after all, has little distinctiveness and thus may be limited in the scope of its territorial protection.”. Those who choose a name like “Doctor's House” must accept that competitors use terms that closely resemble this, as long as there is no identical copy.

3. Acquiring distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion

Acquiring distinctiveness through familiarising means that a sign has become suitable through use to identify a business to the relevant public. Although “Doktershuis Antwerpen” was established, this did not give a monopoly on the concept of “Doktershuis” in that region.

In assessing likelihood of confusion, courts use three criteria:

• The similarity of the designations.
• The nature of the activities.
• Territory.

Although the activities were identical and the territory overlapped, the lack of phonetic similarity between “Antwerp” and “Antverpia” weighed more heavily. The Court emphasized that in trade names the phonetic/auditory aspect predominates.

Specifically, what does this mean for you?

This ruling has direct implications for entrepreneurs choosing a name or seeking to protect their current name.

For start-up entrepreneurs

• Choose creatively: If you choose a purely descriptive name (e.g., “The Bakery Ghent” or “The Law Firm”), your legal position is weak. A competitor can easily start “The Bakery Gand” without you being able to take effective action against it.
• Distinguish: If you do choose a descriptive name, make sure you have a strong, unique logo. The Court in this case took the visually different logo as an argument to eliminate confusion.

For established businesses

• Document your usage: To claim protection for a descriptive name, prove “acquired distinctiveness through familiarising” Keep evidence of long-term use, press articles and testimonials from customers or colleagues.
• Be realistic: You cannot prohibit a competitor from using the same generic terms, as long as they put their own spin on them (such as a translation or other addition).

For the medical and liberal professions

• Terms like “Doctor's House,” “Medical Center” or “Dental Practice” are commonplace. You cannot claim exclusivity on these words. Do you want absolute protection? Then choose a non-descriptive fantasy name.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Do I need to register my trade name to be protected?
No. In Belgium, the protection of a trade name arises from its first, visible and continuous use in commerce. Registration with the CBE is required by law, but protection arises from actual use, not from the registration itself.

Can a competitor choose a name almost the same as mine?
It depends on how original your name is. If you have a very descriptive or banal name (as in this “Doctor's House” ruling), the scope of protection is minimal. A competitor may then use a very similar name, as long as there is only a slight distinction, such as a different spelling or addition.

What is “acquired distinctiveness” of a trade name?
Acquired distinctiveness through familiarising means that a name that was originally not distinctive (e.g., because it simply describes what you do) is nevertheless recognized by the public as the name of your particular business through intensive and prolonged use. As a result, the name still receives legal protection.

Conclusion

The Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling confirms that choosing a descriptive trade name carries legal risks. While acquiring distinctiveness through familiarising gives you some protection against identical copies, the door remains ajar for competitors who vary creatively with your name. A strong, distinctive brand or trade name remains the best investment for legal peace of mind.