Some reputations are more equal than others: GEORGE ORWELL and the limits of trade mark law

Can the name of a famous author function as a trade mark for books, films, podcasts and educational services?

That was the central question in the GEORGE ORWELL case. The EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal held that it could not, at least for the goods and services in issue. The Board considered that the relevant public would see GEORGE ORWELL as describing subject matter, not commercial origin. The Estate has now appealed to the General Court in Case T-137/26, The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell v EUIPO (GEORGE ORWELL).

The decision raises an awkward point. Reputation normally helps a trade mark. Here, the scale of Orwell’s reputation appears to have worked against the applicant. To borrow from one of our favourite Orwellian lines, some reputations may indeed be more equal than others.

What happened?

In March 2018, the Estate of the late Sonia Brownell Orwell, widow of George Orwell, applied to register GEORGE ORWELL as an EU trade mark.

The application covered a broad range of goods and services. The objection concerned, in particular, goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41. These included recorded and digital media, printed matter, books, entertainment, cultural activities and educational services. In other words, the very goods and services through which authors’ works are normally published, adapted, taught and commercialised.

The Examiner refused the application in part under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Article 7(1)(c) concerns descriptive signs. Article 7(1)(b) concerns signs devoid of distinctive character. The objection was simple. George Orwell is not an obscure personal name. He is one of the best-known English-language authors of the twentieth century. His name immediately calls to mind Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm, Big Brother, Newspeak, political manipulation, surveillance and dystopian control.

The Estate appealed.

Because EUIPO practice on famous names had not been entirely consistent, the case was referred to the Grand Board of Appeal. The question was not whether a personal name can ever be a trade mark. Plainly, it can. The narrower question was whether GEORGE ORWELL, when used for books, films, podcasts, educational services and similar goods and services, would be seen as a badge of origin or merely as a description of subject matter.

What was decided?

On 19 December 2025, the Grand Board upheld the refusal.

It held that the relevant English-speaking public, at least in Ireland and Malta, would immediately understand GEORGE ORWELL as referring to the author, his works and the ideas associated with them. For the goods and services in question, the sign would be understood as saying what the goods or services are about. It would indicate content, not commercial origin.

The Board treated this as a form of descriptiveness. Under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, a sign may be refused if it describes a characteristic of the goods or services. “Subject matter” can be such a characteristic. A book about George Orwell, a film about Orwell, a podcast about Orwell, or a course about Orwell may all use the words GEORGE ORWELL to describe what they concern.

The Board also found the sign non-distinctive under Article 7(1)(b). That followed from the same reasoning. If the public sees the sign as content, it will not see it as a trade mark.

The Board stressed that the decision was not a general rule that famous names cannot be registered. Rather, the assessment depends on the name, the goods and services, the relevant public and the commercial reality of the market. 

The EUIPO’s own case note also records that copyright status is not decisive for the assessment under Article 7 EUTMR. This case should not be about copyright by another name. Copyright and trade marks protect different things. Copyright protects creative works for a limited period. Trade marks identify commercial origin. The fact that copyright in a novel has expired, or may expire, and should become available in the public domain should not answer the separate question whether a sign can still function as a badge of origin.

The comparable cases

The various comparable cases do not all point in the same direction.

In SIBELIUS, the surname of the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius was refused for goods and services linked to music, printed matter and entertainment. The reasoning was that consumers would see SIBELIUS as describing the subject matter of the goods or services. In other words, the mark would tell consumers that the goods concerned Sibelius or his music.

In Dr No, the General Court considered the title of a James Bond film and character. The key point was that the evidence showed use as a film title, rather than as a trade mark. That case is sometimes relied on too broadly. It does not mean that fictional titles or character names can never be trade marks. It means that one must show trade mark use, not merely cultural or narrative use.

In JANIS JOPLIN, the Board took a different view. It accepted that the name of a famous singer could function as a trade mark for sound recordings and related services. A consumer may see the name of an artist on a CD or music service as indicating an authorised commercial source. It does not necessarily describe a musical genre or subject matter.

In LE JOURNAL D’ANNE FRANK, the Board also accepted registrability. The title referred to a specific work. It did not merely describe a general category of goods or services. The fact that Anne Frank is world famous was not, in itself, enough to deprive the sign of distinctiveness.

More recently, OBELIX adds an interesting note. It is not the same legal issue. OBELIX is an Article 8(5) reputation case. GEORGE ORWELL is an Article 7 absolute grounds case. But the broader point is relevant. The General Court accepted that OBELIX could be perceived separately as a distinct mark, even when used together with ASTERIX. A famous cultural name can therefore be both culturally known and commercially distinctive. Fame does not automatically destroy trade mark function.

The same commercial reality can be seen more broadly. DISNEY is a good example. It is a name associated with the original author of creative works, characters, stories and entertainment, but it is also plainly capable of functioning as a trade mark across a very wide range of goods and services. EU trade mark records show DISNEY registered as a word mark for numerous classes, including printed matter, entertainment and related goods and services. Of course, Disney is not George Orwell. It is a business name, a brand empire and a surname that has long been used commercially. But that is precisely the point. Creative reputation and trade mark function are not opposites. So why then should novelists, or their estates, be treated as a special category simply because the reputation is literary rather than cinematic, musical, sporting or corporate?

The problem with reputation

This is where the case becomes difficult.

There is an argument that the Grand Board’s approach treats Orwell’s reputation as working against him. The more famous the author, the more likely the name is to be seen as descriptive. The more the works have entered the language, the harder it becomes for the name to function as a trade mark.

There is a certain logic in that. George Orwell has become more than an author’s name. “Orwellian” is now a word in ordinary language. Big Brother has inspired political commentary, literature, television, journalism and advertising. The name evokes a whole family of ideas.

On the other hand, this analysis risks becoming over-elaborate and the simpler point may have been overlooked - there is a distinction between a literary reference to Orwell and the commercial use of the name  GEORGE ORWELL as a trade mark. A critic, teacher, biographer or journalist may refer to Orwell because they are discussing him. That is not trade mark use. It is referential use. It is use other than as a badge of origin. Trade mark law already has mechanisms to allow honest descriptive and referential use. Registration of a name does not, and should not, prevent ordinary discussion of the person concerned.

The more difficult question is what happens when GEORGE ORWELL is used commercially as a sign in the market for books, films, recordings, exhibitions or educational services? In that context, the sign may do precisely what a trade mark is supposed to do. It may tell the public that the goods or services originate from, or have been licensed by, Orwell, his estate, or an authorised commercial undertaking.  The public are accustomed to seeing licensing and merchandising relating to well known individuals even after their death.  As such, the public may well recognize the name GEORGE ORWELL as an indication of commercial origin, rather than merely a description of, say, a genre in the way that “dystopian fiction” or “political satire” might. 

The appeal

As mentioned above, the decision of the Grand Board is currently under appeal before the General Court (T-137/26, The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell v EUIPO (GEORGE ORWELL)). The action was brought before the General Court on 23 February 2026 and is listed as pending. 

It will be interesting to see how this matter develops and what implications the General Court’s decision will have on the protection of famous names moving forward.

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.