A long-running dispute over the attempted trademark registration of the name George Orwell has intensified, with the matter now heading to the European Union General Court following a rejection by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case raises significant questions about the limits of trademark protection for the names of culturally iconic authors and the relationship between copyright and trademark law in Europe.
Background to the dispute
The dispute originates from a trademark application filed in 2018 by the estate of Sonia Brownell Orwell, seeking EU trademark protection for the sign “George Orwell.” The application covered a broad range of goods and services, including recorded media, printed publications, and educational and entertainment services—categories closely tied to literary works and cultural content.
During examination, the EUIPO partially refused the application for several classes, particularly those relating to publishing and cultural services. The Office concluded that the name would be perceived by consumers primarily as a reference to the famous author and the themes of his works, rather than as an indicator of the commercial origin of goods or services.
The estate appealed the refusal, and the matter ultimately reached the EUIPO’s Grand Board of Appeal.
EUIPO: “George Orwell” descriptive for literary goods
In December 2025, the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal upheld the refusal for key classes such as books, audiovisual materials, and cultural or educational services. The Board determined that the name “George Orwell” would immediately be understood by the relevant public as referring to the celebrated writer and his works—such as 1984 and Animal Farm—or the ideas derived from them.
Under EU trademark law, a sign cannot be registered if it is descriptive of the goods or services or lacks distinctive character. The Board found both grounds applicable. Consumers encountering the mark on books or films would likely assume the products relate to the author or his literary legacy rather than identifying a specific commercial undertaking.
Importantly, the decision stressed that trademark law is designed to identify the commercial origin of goods or services, whereas the name of an author typically identifies the intellectual or artistic origin of a work—an issue usually addressed through copyright rather than trademark protection.
Partial success for merchandising goods
While the application failed for cultural and publishing services, the estate achieved partial success. The mark was permitted for certain unrelated merchandise categories such as clothing, bags, toys, and other consumer goods. In those contexts, the EUIPO considered that the name could function as a brand rather than merely describing the content of the product.
This distinction reflects a common approach in EU trademark law: a famous name may function as a distinctive brand for goods unrelated to the individual’s primary field but may remain descriptive where it directly identifies the content or subject matter of the goods or services.
Appeal to the EU General Court
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the estate has now escalated the dispute to the EU General Court, the European Union’s second-highest judicial body. The court will review whether the EUIPO correctly applied the legal standards governing descriptiveness and distinctiveness in refusing the mark for literary and cultural goods.
The appeal could clarify how European trademark law treats the names of historically significant figures whose works have entered the public domain. Observers note that the case sits at the intersection of two intellectual property regimes: while copyright eventually expires, trademark rights can theoretically last indefinitely, raising concerns about attempts to extend control over cultural works through branding.
Wider implications for IP law
The outcome of the appeal may have broader implications for trademark strategy involving famous names. The EUIPO decision suggested that extreme cultural recognition can actually undermine trademark registrability, because the public is more likely to view the name as describing subject matter rather than commercial origin.
If upheld by the EU General Court, the ruling could reinforce the principle that trademark law should not be used to monopolize widely recognised cultural references. At the same time, it confirms that famous names may still function as trademarks in contexts unrelated to their historical or creative legacy.
For publishers, rights holders and brand owners, the case underscores the importance of carefully defining the goods and services for which trademark protection is sought—particularly when dealing with the names of globally recognised authors.
Background to the dispute
The dispute originates from a trademark application filed in 2018 by the estate of Sonia Brownell Orwell, seeking EU trademark protection for the sign “George Orwell.” The application covered a broad range of goods and services, including recorded media, printed publications, and educational and entertainment services—categories closely tied to literary works and cultural content.
During examination, the EUIPO partially refused the application for several classes, particularly those relating to publishing and cultural services. The Office concluded that the name would be perceived by consumers primarily as a reference to the famous author and the themes of his works, rather than as an indicator of the commercial origin of goods or services.
The estate appealed the refusal, and the matter ultimately reached the EUIPO’s Grand Board of Appeal.
EUIPO: “George Orwell” descriptive for literary goods
In December 2025, the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal upheld the refusal for key classes such as books, audiovisual materials, and cultural or educational services. The Board determined that the name “George Orwell” would immediately be understood by the relevant public as referring to the celebrated writer and his works—such as 1984 and Animal Farm—or the ideas derived from them.
Under EU trademark law, a sign cannot be registered if it is descriptive of the goods or services or lacks distinctive character. The Board found both grounds applicable. Consumers encountering the mark on books or films would likely assume the products relate to the author or his literary legacy rather than identifying a specific commercial undertaking.
Importantly, the decision stressed that trademark law is designed to identify the commercial origin of goods or services, whereas the name of an author typically identifies the intellectual or artistic origin of a work—an issue usually addressed through copyright rather than trademark protection.
Partial success for merchandising goods
While the application failed for cultural and publishing services, the estate achieved partial success. The mark was permitted for certain unrelated merchandise categories such as clothing, bags, toys, and other consumer goods. In those contexts, the EUIPO considered that the name could function as a brand rather than merely describing the content of the product.
This distinction reflects a common approach in EU trademark law: a famous name may function as a distinctive brand for goods unrelated to the individual’s primary field but may remain descriptive where it directly identifies the content or subject matter of the goods or services.
Appeal to the EU General Court
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the estate has now escalated the dispute to the EU General Court, the European Union’s second-highest judicial body. The court will review whether the EUIPO correctly applied the legal standards governing descriptiveness and distinctiveness in refusing the mark for literary and cultural goods.
The appeal could clarify how European trademark law treats the names of historically significant figures whose works have entered the public domain. Observers note that the case sits at the intersection of two intellectual property regimes: while copyright eventually expires, trademark rights can theoretically last indefinitely, raising concerns about attempts to extend control over cultural works through branding.
Wider implications for IP law
The outcome of the appeal may have broader implications for trademark strategy involving famous names. The EUIPO decision suggested that extreme cultural recognition can actually undermine trademark registrability, because the public is more likely to view the name as describing subject matter rather than commercial origin.
If upheld by the EU General Court, the ruling could reinforce the principle that trademark law should not be used to monopolize widely recognised cultural references. At the same time, it confirms that famous names may still function as trademarks in contexts unrelated to their historical or creative legacy.
For publishers, rights holders and brand owners, the case underscores the importance of carefully defining the goods and services for which trademark protection is sought—particularly when dealing with the names of globally recognised authors.