Obelix
as a
Weapon?
Obelix
as a
Weapon?
from
Can someone register the name of a world-famous comic book character as a trademark for firearms? Is it enough that the name has appeared on toys and books for decades to prove brand recognition? And when do offices really have to examine all relevant evidence before making a decision?
What is this dispute about?
The Polish company has registered the trademark “Obelix” with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for a long list of weapons and ammunition – from pistols and hand grenades to tanks. The application dates back to 2020 and was registered at the end of 2022.
The French publishing house Les Éditions Albert René, which owns the laws to the comic series “Astérix & Obélix”, did not want to accept this. It applied to the EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity of this trademark, relying on its own EU word mark “Obelix”, which has been registered with the EUIPO since 1996. This trademark is registered for a variety of everyday products, including books, toys, clothing and entertainment products.
The EUIPO initially rejected the application for invalidity and the Board of Appeal also confirmed this decision. The EGC confirmed this decision with Judgment of 13.05.2026 – Ref. T-24/25 has now been overturned and referred back. The EUIPO must re-examine the case and fully assess all relevant factors.
The well-known trademark
European trademark law protects well-known trademarks even if the infringer offers completely different goods or services. For example, the owner of the trademark “Coca-Cola” can take action against someone who uses the same sign for engine parts, even if lemonade and engine parts have nothing to do with each other. However, this requires three things to be fulfilled at the same time:
- The earlier trademark must enjoy a good reputation in the EU (so-called reputation within the meaning of trademark law).
- The public must establish a mental link between the well-known trademark and the younger trademark.
- This link must result or be capable of resulting in a disadvantage for the earlier trademark.
The EUIPO had already rejected the publisher’s application because it did not consider the reputation of the trademark “Obelix” as an independent trademark to be sufficiently proven.
Errors in the assessment of evidence
The EUIPO Board of Appeal had argued that the publisher had submitted a lot of evidence that the duo “Astérix & Obélix” was well-known, but not that the name “Obelix” alone was perceived as a trademark. The Office simply disregarded documents relating to the combined name.
The EGC took a different view and found that the ® symbol was placed separately behind the names “Obelix” or “Astérix” on numerous products. This sign is internationally recognized and stands for a registered trademark. Anyone who buys such a product will therefore understand the name not only as a reference to a character, but also as a sign of origin. The Board of Appeal should have taken this circumstance into account.
Furthermore, according to the court, there is no rule in EU trademark law according to which a trademark is only deemed to be well-known if it is used alone – without another trademark next to it. Two trademarks can be used side by side without one displacing the other. Therefore, the EUIPO was not allowed to ignore the evidence relating to the combined designation “Astérix & Obélix”.
The Board of Appeal wrongly disregarded most of the evidence on the ground that it related to the use of the sign Obelix in combination with the sign Asterix and not to its use in isolation.
The conceptual link was judged to be too narrow
The EUIPO had also found that the public would not make a mental connection between “Obelix” for comic goods and “Obelix” for weapons anyway. The main reason given was that the goods were completely different and the relevant consumer groups did not overlap.
However, the EGC recognized that the EUIPO had only examined two of the five factors relevant for the assessment of such a link. In principle, the following must be fully taken into account: the degree of similarity of the trademarks themselves, the strength of the reputation of the earlier trademark, the nature of the goods or services, the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier trademark and the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
In particular, the EUIPO had not examined the distinctive character of the sign “Obelix” at all. It is a fantasy name with no meaning in any language and has been used exclusively by a single company for over 60 years. This circumstance could have a considerable influence on whether the public makes a connection despite dissimilar goods.
What does the ruling mean in practice?
The uniqueness of the symbol is what counts when making a mental connection. The more imaginative and unmistakable a trademark is, the easier it is to make a connection to it, even with very different products.
Being known as a figure is not the same as being known as a trademark. The fact that millions of people know a name is not enough. It must be proven that the public also perceives the name as a symbol of origin.
However, combination marks are not an evidentiary disadvantage. Those who usually use their trademarks together can use evidence of the combination to establish the reputation of a single trademark.
The ® symbol can play a role here. Those who use it consistently on their products provide evidence that the symbol should and will be perceived as a trademark – and not just as a name.
Conclusion
With this ruling, the EGC has specified standards that are of significance beyond the “Obelix” case. Accordingly, the mere fact that a name has become known through films, books or comics is not synonymous with a reputation under trademark law in the legal sense. At the same time, the court makes it clear that the Office must fully examine all evidence before making a decision, including evidence where several trademarks appear together.
The ruling shows that a well-known trademark does not protect itself. What is needed is careful documentation and strategy, a consistent presence on the market and, in the event of a dispute, sound evidence.
It now remains to be seen what the outcome of the proceedings before the EUIPO will be.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
