No work title protection
for
Moneypenny.
No work title protection
for
Moneypenny.
from
Can a novel or movie character itself be a work? And when does a name like “Moneypenny” become the title of a work? The Federal Court of Justice had to clarify whether the Bond character Miss Moneypenny has enough independence to displace third-party trademarks.
Miss Moneypenny
It is an interesting clash of two very different worlds. On the one hand, there is the glamorous and world-famous Bond franchise with its iconic characters and clearly defined roles. On the other hand, there is a modern business concept from Germany that offers assistance and office services under the name “MONEYPENNY” – including a franchise system, trademarks, domains and a website.
The name is seductive: competent, confident, discreet – a bundle of attributes that works perfectly in the assistance industry. But is a company allowed to use a name that comes from one of the world’s most successful film franchises?
The film company took a different view and invoked work title protection, among other things. In the end, only this question remained before the Federal Court of Justice. The result is remarkably clear: “Moneypenny” is not a work eligible for title protection.
Background: Work title protection
Work titles are intended to provide orientation for the public. They serve to distinguish immaterial products – books, films, apps or websites – from one another. It is the designation of a work that is protected, not the work itself.
Two conditions must be met for the protection to apply:
- There must be a work, i.e. an immaterial work result that the public perceives as an independent object.
- The designation must be used as a title, i.e. precisely as the name of this work.
In its decision, the Federal Court of Justice once again makes it clear that it is not about the creativity of a figure, but about its ability to be designated: Can the name actually designate a work? And does this work even exist?
With fictional characters, the answer is rarely simple. This is because they regularly appear in the context of a superordinate work – novel, film or series – and are initially part of this work for the public, not an independent product.
Moneypenny between assistant and secret service
The Moneypenny character has been part of the regular cast since the first Bond film in 1962: as the reliable, trenchant and always charming secretary to the head of the secret service “M”, later – in the reboot – first as an agent, then again as an assistant.
At the same time, the franchisor used the name “MONEYPENNY” in the German assistance market for years, including for:
- Office and assistance services,
- Training, recruitment and franchise documents,
- several identical trademarks,
- different domains like my-moneypenny.com,
- and an extensive online presence, documented in the judgment by a screenshot of the homepage.
It was clear to the film company that the character was so well-known that the name could not be used freely. It asserted claims under trademark law, competition law and work title protection.
After all other bases for claims had already failed in the lower courts, the Federal Court of Justice was left with the question: Can the character “Moneypenny” be a work eligible for title protection?
Federal Court of Justice: The figure does not have its own work profile
The Federal Court of Justice denies with Judgment of 04.12.2025 – Ref. I ZR 219/24 the work title protection of Miss Moneypenny.
In principle, it is possible for a fictional character to form a separate work. However, the decisive factor is whether the character in the original work is so independent, distinctive and individualized that the public perceives it as a separate object.
The ability to designate a fictional character requires a certain independence and independent recognition of the character in relation to the work in which it is used.
The Federal Court of Justice thus makes a clear distinction:
- A mere supporting character is not enough.
- A “typical role” is not enough either.
- Even a long-standing presence in the franchise is no substitute for individualization.
Moneypenny lacks an unmistakable profile
According to the Court of Appeal, which the Federal Court of Justice follows, the figure is not protected by copyright as a separate figure because it does not have a sufficiently distinctive personality profile.
Added to this is the lack of visual fixation: for decades, very different actresses have played the role. There is no consistent external appearance that the public could perceive as defining.
The characteristics described – loyal, efficient, charming, slightly ironic – are archetypal for an assistant character, but not individual enough. Such a characterization does not make Moneypenny an independent intellectual creation.
Work title protection does not arise through spin-offs or marketing
The Federal Court of Justice clarifies that merchandising, advertising, spin-offs, accompanying literature or licensed products may not be taken into account.
According to the Federal Court of Justice, independence must stem from the basic work itself. Anything else would be “independence by virtue of marketing”. The Federal Court of Justice expressly rejects this.
This means that all products submitted by the plaintiff – from accessories to spin-off novels – remain legally irrelevant.
The public does not recognize the work character of the name
The examination of the public perception only revealed that “Moneypenny” refers to the Bond films – not to an independent work.
According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is not sufficient for work title protection.
The name is not a title in the film, but a purely internal fictional designation of a person. This means that it is not used as a title – another reason why the claim is not valid.
What companies can learn from the case
The decision has an impact far beyond the bond universe and creates clarity in practice.
Figure names are not automatically blocked under trademark law
Even famous figures do not enjoy automatic title protection.
Companies can use such names under certain circumstances if:
- they do not infringe a registered trademark,
- no work title protection applies,
- there is no unfair exploitation of a well-known trademark.
This creates legal freedom of movement for creative or descriptive names that also happen to appear in pop culture.
Rights holders should take trademark precautions at an early stage
Anyone relying on work title protection is ill-advised. The hurdle is high – especially for characters who only appear as part of a comprehensive work.
The following therefore applies to rights holders:
- register central figures and designations as a trademark as a precautionary measure,
- ensure clear license chains,
- consistently monitor trademark use.
Title protection can supplement, but not replace.
Conclusion
The Federal Court of Justice draws a clear line: fictional characters can enjoy work title protection – but only if they develop a genuine independence in the basic work. “Moneypenny” remains a formative but functional secondary character in the Bond universe.
It is not an independent work and its name is not a work title. For companies, this means that it may be possible to use such names.
This means for rights holders: If you want to protect your characters, you should do so under trademark law – not just in disputes over title protection.
We are happy to
advise you about
Title protection!
