No trademark
for Animal Farm
and 1984.
No trademark
for Animal Farm
and 1984.
of
Can a book title be registered as a trademark if the underlying work is world-famous? The Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled against this for “ANIMAL FARM” and “1984.” For publishers, estate administrators, and rights holders of literary works, this decision provides important insights.
The estate sought to register “ANIMAL FARM” and “1984” as trademarks
The estate of the late Sonia Brownell Orwell, George Orwell’s widow and legal successor, filed two EU word marks on March 6, 2018: “ANIMAL FARM” and “1984.” The application sought to protect, among other things, books, printed materials, films, sound recordings, and video games, as well as entertainment and educational offerings.
The EUIPO partially rejected both applications in 2019. According to the Office, the titles lack the ability to identify a specific company as the provider and are understood by the public merely as a description of the content. Because the Office had previously ruled differently in comparable cases, the competent Board of Appeal referred both cases to the Grand Board of Appeal.
Both appeals were dismissed
In a decision dated May 27, 2026 (Case Nos. R 1719/2019-G and R 1922/2019-G, heard jointly), the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO dismissed the appeals. The rejection therefore stands for books, films, sound recordings, computer games, and entertainment and educational offerings. It is currently unknown whether the decision has been challenged before the General Court of the European Union; therefore, it is not yet final.
When does a book title merely describe the content?
The Grand Board of Appeal clarifies that not every book title is automatically excluded from registration. The decisive factor is whether the public immediately recognizes the title as the title of a work and therefore associates it mentally with the content rather than with a specific company. In the cases of “ANIMAL FARM” and “1984,” the Chamber affirms this. After decades of circulation, numerous film adaptations, and their firm establishment in school curricula in Ireland and Malta, both titles have become an integral part of general cultural knowledge.
While a trademark guarantees the commercial origin of goods or services, a book title directs the consumer’s attention to the intellectual work itself rather than to the company responsible for its publication.
In this regard, the Chamber expressly cites an earlier decision regarding “THE JUNGLE BOOK,” in which it was ruled that titles that have become independent genre terms through numerous adaptations generally cannot be used to identify a specific company as the source. The Chamber expressly distances itself from a differing decision regarding *The Diary of Anne Frank*, where a different ruling was reached.
Copyright does not automatically protect a trademark
Noteworthy is the clarification regarding the relationship between copyright law and trademark law. In the Chamber’s view, whether or not Orwell’s works are still protected by copyright has no bearing on the trademark law assessment. Copyright law and trademark law protect different interests: one protects creative expression, while the other protects the distinction of a product’s commercial origin.
Conclusion
For publishers, estate administrators, and rights holders of literary works, the ruling means this: The better known a work’s title is, the greater the risk that it will be understood merely as a summary of the content and, for that reason alone, will not qualify as a trademark. This applies regardless of whether the work is still protected by copyright or is already in the public domain—that is, freely available for anyone to use.
Anyone who still wishes to register the title of a well-known work as a trademark should rely on distinctive additional elements, such as a graphic design, a standalone series title, or a combination with a unique word element. Alternatively, one should apply for trademark registration in a timely manner, before the title becomes well-known.
A blanket statement that work titles are never eligible for trademark protection cannot be inferred from the decision. The Federal Patent Court had previously reached a similar conclusion regarding well-known fairy tale characters.
We’d be happy to
you on
Trademark law!
