Can you use a historical place name that is also a well-known brand?

Not exactly. On May 4, 2026, the Brussels Court of Appeals ruled that a campground in Zillebeke may no longer call itself “‘t hof Bellewaerde,” because that name conflicts with the trademark and trade name of the neighboring Bellewaerde amusement park. The fact that the campground is located on the site of a historic farmstead and a World War I battlefield with virtually the same name did not help the operators. The decisive factor was not the history of the site, but whether the public today recognizes that name as a place name.

The facts

Since 1954, Belpark NV has operated Bellewaerde, an amusement, water, nature, and animal park in Ypres, which attracts 850,000 to 900,000 visitors annually. It is the owner of the EU word mark BELLEWAERDE, filed on November 5, 2013, and registered on April 28, 2014, under number 012282315, including, among other things, for recreation, amusement parks, and zoos in Class 41, and for the provision of food and beverages and the operation of campgrounds in Class 43. It does not offer overnight accommodations itself.

‘t Hof Bellewaerde BV was founded in June 2020 and opened a 3.3-hectare campground in April 2021, within walking distance of the park. The property is situated around a reconstructed farmhouse on a protected archaeological site, listed in the real estate heritage inventory as the Bellewaarde Ridge World War I battlefield, always spelled with two “a”s.

Belpark served a notice of default on the campground, which defended its use of the name by citing its historical and geographical origins. After unsuccessful correspondence, Belpark filed a lawsuit in July 2021 before the presiding judge of the Dutch-language Commercial Court in Brussels, sitting in summary proceedings. In April 2022, the judge dismissed Belpark’s claims and upheld only the campground’s counterclaim: the trademark was declared invalid for the operation of campgrounds. Belpark filed an appeal.

The ruling

The counterclaims seeking a declaration of invalidity and revocation of the trademark

The court first addressed the challenge to the trademark. The campground sought a declaration of invalidity pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 1, (c) Union Trademark Regulation (UMVo), read in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of the UMVo: the mark would indicate only the place of origin.

The court recalled the standard set forth in the judgment Windsurfing on Lake Chiemsee: The decisive factor is whether the relevant circles recognize the name as a place name, and whether they associate that place with the goods or services in question, or whether such an association can reasonably be expected (ECJ, May 4, 1999, C-108/97 and C-109/97). According to the Court of Appeal, the campground did not provide that proof. Both the park and the campground are located within the territory of Zillebeke; “Bellewaerde” is not a current place name, and the reference in a provincial spatial implementation plan refers to the recreation park, not to an area. The fact that a manor with a similar name existed in the Middle Ages and that the battlefield is called Bellewaarde Ridge does not, according to the court, make it plausible that the average consumer in the Benelux or in the Union would recognize that name as a place. And even if that were the case, the court held that the public would not assume that the services in question originated there. The claim for invalidity was dismissed, so the court did not need to examine the secondary ground regarding establishment.

The declaration of forfeiture was upheld, however. Pursuant to Article 58(1)(a) of the UMVo, the rights of the owner lapse with respect to goods or services for which the trademark has not been put to genuine use for five years. Belpark also did not dispute that it had not used the trademark for campgrounds and did not provide a valid reason for this non-use. The court of appeals also ruled that the judge hearing the motion to stay proceedings was authorized to decide on a declaration of forfeiture: Article 124(d) of the UMVo permits a counterclaim, and Article XVII.17 of the Code of Economic Law (WER) grants the presiding judge the authority to declare a right invoked to be null and void or to have lapsed. According to the court, it is not required for the trademark owner to have expressly invoked the service in question.

Trademark and Trade Name Infringement

With regard to the infringement, the court applied Article 9, paragraph 2(b) of the UMVo. It found that the campground uses the sign as a trademark in the course of trade—on its website, in advertising, as a trade name, and as a corporate name—which Article 9(3) of the UMVo expressly lists as prohibited acts. The services are partly identical, as the campground store offers sandwiches, beverages, and ice cream, and partly similar, as the court held that the operation of a campground is complementary to recreation, amusement parks, and zoos (see judgment Canon, ECJ, September 29, 1998, C-39/97). According to the court, the trademark has strong distinctiveness due to intensive use, and the signs are highly similar both visually and phonetically, with the element “‘t hof” having little distinctiveness in the context of camping and hospitality. In an overall assessment (see judgment Saber, ECJ, November 11, 1997, C-251/95, and judgment Lloyd Shoe Factory Meyer, ECJ, June 22, 1999, C-342/97), the court concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion.

The defenses were rejected. The prior right of local significance under Article 138(3) of the UMVo presupposes a right that predates the trademark; the campground has only been using the name since 2021, and any prior trade name right of the demolished farmhouse had, according to the court, been lost due to decades without visible and public use. The limitation in Article 14(1)(b) of the UMVo did not apply because it was not proven that the designation indicated the place of origin, and Article 14(1)(a) of the UMVo applies, strictly speaking, only to the name or address of a natural person, not of a corporation. Furthermore, according to the court, the condition of fair use under Article 14(2) of the UMVo was not met, given the proximity to the park and the brand’s reputation (see judgment Anheuser-Busch, ECJ, November 16, 2004, C-245/02).

On the same grounds, the court found an infringement of the trade names Bellewaerde and Bellewaerde Park. According to Article 8, a trade name is Treaty of Paris protected without the need for filing or registration, by virtue of first public use, and is enforced in Belgium under Art. VI.104 of the WER. According to the court, this dual infringement in itself constitutes an act contrary to fair market practices, so that it no longer examined the additional question regarding misleading market practices due to lack of interest.

The court prohibited the use of the symbols as a trade name, company name, trademark, or domain name for a campground or for serving food and beverages, subject to a penalty of 1,000 euros per month, up to a maximum of 50,000 euros, and only after a three-month adjustment period. It noted that Belpark does not object to informational references to the site’s history, nor to the nameplate on the farmhouse’s facade.

Legal analysis and interpretation

The brand's decline did not save the campground

This is the most important lesson from the ruling. The campground got exactly what it asked for: the trademark was declared invalid for the operation of campgrounds, which is precisely its business. Yet it lost the case. The explanation lies in the structure of Article 9(2)(b) of the UMVo: a likelihood of confusion does not require identical services, only similar ones. Once the court accepts that camping is complementary to an amusement park, the trademark no longer needs to be registered for campgrounds. Furthermore, since the Canon ruling, a slight similarity can be offset by a high degree of correspondence between the signs and a strong trademark—and according to the court of appeals, both were present in this case.

Anyone who raises a claim of lapse as a primary defense must therefore first determine what is included in the remaining classes. If the claim is successful but an adjacent service remains registered, the benefit is symbolic. Conversely, the ruling shows that the trademark owner takes a real risk by invoking a broad class: the court of appeals explicitly accepted that a service for which a declaration of invalidity is sought need not have been explicitly invoked. Anyone who uses their registration in Class 43 against a defendant thereby also exposes the unused parts of that class.

A place name is descriptive only if the public is familiar with the place

The campground submitted a historical dossier: maps from 1873, a medieval manor, British staff maps, and a protected site. Legally, that was the wrong evidence. Article 7(1)(c) of the UMVo does not ask whether a place exists or existed, but whether the relevant public recognizes the name as a place name and associates the relevant services with it.

The contrast with recent case law is instructive. In the judgment T-105/23 the word mark ICELAND was deemed descriptive precisely because a significant portion of the public recognizes that word as the name of a country with its own distinctive characteristics (Ger.EU July 16, 2025, T-105/23, ‘Iceland Foods’). Conversely, Neuschwanstein as a trademark for souvenirs, even though the castle is world-famous, because the public does not perceive the name as an indication of the place where the goods are manufactured (ECJ, September 6, 2018, C-488/16 P). The judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal follows this second line of reasoning and even goes a step further: according to the court, the name is not even recognized as a place name. Another detail that is easily overlooked also played a role: the site is consistently referred to as Bellewaarde, with a double “a,” while the trademark is Bellewaerde. A single vowel difference undermined the core of the defense.

In addition, the judgment confirms that, while the limitation set forth in Article 14(1)(b) of the UMVo is indeed a fair-use provision, it does not constitute a blanket exemption. In the ICELAND case, the General Court also pointed out that this provision does not grant third parties the right to use the name as a trademark, but only as a descriptive designation. The campground used the name as a trade name, company name, and signboard, and thus not merely for informational purposes. That remains a delicate line to draw: in the judgment Gerolsteiner Fountains The Court of Justice held that an indication of origin may be valid despite phonetic similarity to an earlier trademark, provided that it is used in good faith (ECJ, January 7, 2004, C-100/02). Since the Court of Appeals had already ruled in this case that there was no indication of origin, that consideration was not addressed.

After Brexit, the British public no longer counts

An unremarkable passage with far-reaching consequences. The entire geographic defense relied on memorial tourists from the United Kingdom, for whom Bellewaarde Ridge does hold significance. The Court of Appeals found that the counterclaim for annulment was filed on August 27, 2021—that is, after the transition period had expired—so that EU law no longer applied to the United Kingdom at that time. It referred in this regard to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to the judgment C-337/22 P (Court of Justice of the European Union, February 5, 2026, Case C-337/22 P, ‘EUIPO v. Nowhere Co.’).

That reference warrants some clarification. That ruling did not concern the composition of the relevant public, but rather the question of whether a parent in the United Kingdom can still rely on a prior right to file an opposition; the Court ruled that the prior right must remain in effect until EUIPO issues a decision. The Court of Appeal draws on the underlying principle from that ruling—namely, that the assessment date is postponed and that the United Kingdom is subsequently excluded. This transition is defensible, but it is an analogy and not a direct application. In practical terms, the outcome is clear in any case: a defense based on the perception of a British public has lost its basis in EU trademark proceedings since Brexit. Anyone who still wishes to rely on that knowledge will have to invoke a parallel British right, with all the territorial limitations that entail.

Specifically, what does this mean?

For owners of a well-known brand. A strong trademark works in two ways. It broadens the scope of protection, bringing complementary services within that scope, but it also raises the bar for fair use: the better known the trademark, the less leeway a third party has to justify using a similar name. In addition, determine what you actually use the trademark for and document that use by class, because any registration you invoke in proceedings may become the subject of a counterclaim for revocation. You can read more about the protection of marks on our page about trademark law.

For business owners who wish to use a historical or geographical name. First, check for availability in the public records and on the market, not in the archives. The historical accuracy of a name is legally almost irrelevant; what matters is public perception and the existence of prior rights. Also, be mindful of the distinction between informational and distinctive use. Stating that your business is located on a historic site remains permissible, as the court explicitly noted here. Using that site as the name of your company is a different matter. Consider this before incorporation, because a ban would instantly affect your trade name, your company name, your domain name, and all your communications. Anyone facing this decision would be wise to seek assistance in advance from a trademark lawyer.

For anyone who is filing or facing a strike claim. The chairperson has the authority to do more than simply order a strike. Upon a counterclaim, he may declare the right invoked null and void or lapsed (Art. XVII.17 WER) and order its cancellation from the trademark register, and he may grant a period for compliance (Art. XVII.3 WER). Be sure to explicitly request that period: in this case, the campground was granted three months, which makes the difference between an orderly name change and an immediate shutdown. Finally, note the allocation of costs. Because each party was found to be in the wrong on separate points, the court split the costs and limited the litigation fee to the base amount, partly in light of the defendant’s limited financial means. Anyone counting on an increased award in this type of dispute should temper those expectations. The fact that the infringement also constituted a violation of the fair market practices ...adds little, however, once the strike has already been ordered.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Can I use the name of a historic place for my business if there is a trademark registered for it?
Only if you use that name in a purely descriptive manner—for example, to explain the location or history of your business—and if that use is fair. As soon as you use the name to distinguish your business or services from those of others, you are using it as a trademark, and the trademark owner may object. Whether the place actually exists or existed is not a deciding factor in this regard.

Can a trademark owner take action against an activity in which it does not use its trademark?
That’s often the case. The trademark may be declared invalid for that specific service, but the trademark owner may continue to rely on the other services for which the trademark is actually used. If those services are similar or complementary, the likelihood of confusion may still exist, and a cease-and-desist order may still be issued.

Does registering my company name with the Cross-Reference Database protect me against trademark infringement?
No. The registration of a company name or the use of a domain name does not confer the right to use a sign that infringes on an earlier trademark or trade name. According to the text of the EU Trademark Regulation, the exception for the use of one’s own name applies only to natural persons.

Conclusion

The May 4, 2026, ruling illustrates how limited the scope is in Belgium for the commercial use of a name with a historical or geographical background when that same name is already used as a well-known trademark and trade name. Proof that a place was or is called by that name is not sufficient: what matters is whether the public recognizes the name as a place, and whether its use remains descriptive or becomes distinctive. Anyone facing the choice of a name or confronted with such a conflict stands to benefit from an early analysis of the registries, the classes, and actual use.