EUIPO
nullifies the trademark
Mykonos.
EUIPO
nullifies the trademark
Mykonos.
of
Can the name of a dreamy Greek island be reserved as a trademark for perfumes and cosmetics? No, says the EUIPO, which is precisely why it invalidated the MYKONOS trademark. For companies with geographic trademark names, this decision raises a fundamental question.
Perfumes Named After an Island
The case raises a fundamental issue of trademark law that extends far beyond the Aegean Sea. On December 10, 2019, someone filed an application to register the word mark MYKONOS as a trademark. On May 22, 2020, it was registered as EU trademark No. 18 162 723 for goods in Class 3, including perfumes, fragrances, toiletries, body deodorants, and deodorants and antiperspirants.
On August 8, 2023, an Italian company filed an application with the EUIPO to have the trademark declared invalid for all registered goods. The Italian company based its request on the grounds that “MYKONOS” was descriptive and lacked distinctiveness, and additionally cited its own unregistered commercial designations and domain names containing the element “mykonos.” The EUIPO Cancellation Division rejected the application in its entirety by decision dated November 25, 2024. It held that, although Mykonos is known as an island, it has no discernible meaning in relation to perfumes or cosmetics, and therefore the trademark is not descriptive.
The Italian company filed an appeal against this decision on January 22, 2025.
Two Contrasting Interpretations of an Island
The Italian company argued that Mykonos is known throughout Europe as a Mediterranean vacation destination and has historical ties to perfume production, citing an ancient perfume factory on the neighboring island of Delos as well as numerous perfumes already on the market that include “Mykonos” in their names.
The trademark owner countered that Mykonos has no relevant perfume or cosmetics industry. Archaeological anecdotes from antiquity do not establish a current connection to modern perfumery. Furthermore, there are numerous other EU trademarks consisting of the names of Greek islands or European cities, such as Naxos, Como, Positano, Venice, and Avignon. Finally, the trademark owner cited the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the ICELAND case and argued that that decision concerned the name of a country and could not be applied to a small island.
Appeals Board Declares the MYKONOS Trademark Invalid
The First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO upheld the appeal with Decision dated June 11, 2026 – Case No. R 153/2025-1 . It overturned the decision of the Cancellation Division and declared the EU trademark MYKONOS invalid for all registered goods. The review was limited to the issue of descriptive character.
When is an island name descriptive?
In the opinion of the Board of Appeal, the decisive factor is whether, at the time of the trademark application—in this case, on December 10, 2019—a geographic name was likely to be understood by the public as an indication of the geographic origin of the goods in question. In this regard, the Board relied on the principles established by the European Court of Justice as early as 1999 in the Windsurfing Chiemsee case ( ECJ Judgment of May 4, 1999 – Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 ): Geographic names may not be registered as trademarks if they are already well-known in connection with the relevant goods, or if they are likely to be used to identify such goods in the future and must therefore be kept available for competitors.
From the Board’s perspective, two factors were decisive in applying this standard to Mykonos. First, even before the application was filed in 2019, the island was already known to a significant portion of the relevant public in the EU as a Greek island with unspoiled nature, a long history, and a vibrant nightlife. Second, Mykonos is associated with a Mediterranean climate and Mediterranean vegetation, which provide natural ingredients such as olives, rosemary, thyme, and lavender—ingredients typically used in the manufacture of fragrances and cosmetics. Since goods in Class 3 do not require sophisticated production facilities and can even be handcrafted, the Board considered it obvious that consumers would attribute a geographical origin to the MYKONOS trademark.
Taking into account the characteristics of the Greek island of Mykonos described above […] and the nature of the goods in question […] it must be assumed that, at the time of its application, the contested EU trademark served, in the minds of the relevant public, as an indication that those goods originated in Mykonos.
Is an island different from a country?
The trademark owner had argued that the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding ICELAND (Judgment of July 16, 2025 – Case No. T-105/23 ) was not transferable because it involved the name of a country, and consumers perceive country names differently than the name of a small island. The Board of Appeal did not follow this distinction in its reasoning. It directly applied to the island of Mykonos the principle confirmed in the ICELAND decision, according to which it is sufficient that a geographical name could serve to indicate origin in the future. In doing so, it also drew upon the earlier case law regarding NEUSCHWANSTEIN ( ECJ Judgment of September 6, 2018 – Case No. C-488/16 P ), according to which geographic names must remain available to competitors in the public interest if they are already well-known in connection with the relevant goods or could become so in the future.
For the trademark owner, this meant that neither Mykonos’s current reputation for perfumes nor the existence of actual production facilities was required. In the Chamber’s view, the name’s potential future suitability as an indication of origin was sufficient. The Chamber also rejected the reference to other registered island and city trademarks, since earlier registrations did not have binding effect and each trademark must be examined individually and rigorously.
What does this mean for other geographical brand names?
This decision follows a line of cases stretching from Chiemsee through NEUSCHWANSTEIN to ICELAND. As early as 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union had denied the Principality of Monaco registration of its own country name. What is new is that the Board of Appeal has explicitly applied the same standard to a comparatively small island as well, without requiring any current industrial production on site.
Companies that choose place names or regional names as part of their trademarks face an increased risk. This is particularly true if the region is well-known for tourism and a plausible connection to the goods in question can be established—for example, through raw materials typical of the region. At the same time, the NEUSCHWANSTEIN case demonstrates that not every name with a geographical connotation is automatically descriptive. In that case, the European Court of Justice upheld the registration because the castle served not as a place of production but only as a marketing location for the goods in question. The distinction remains a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion
The decision is consistent with a trend in European case law to grant trademark protection to geographic names only with great reluctance whenever a plausible connection to the goods in question can be established.
A critical point is that the Board sets comparatively low requirements for a future claim of origin. It relies heavily on general statements about the Mediterranean climate and craftsmanship, which could similarly be applied to numerous regions around the Mediterranean, even though Mykonos itself does not have a significant perfume or cosmetics industry. The trademark owner had challenged precisely this point but was unable to prevail because, in the Board’s view, existing production is not a determining factor.
It remains to be seen how far this standard can be extended before virtually every well-known place name is deemed potentially descriptive for nearly every class of goods.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
