A title known worldwide would seem to make an ideal trademark: everyone recognises it, everyone remembers it. The Grand Board of the EUIPO took the opposite view — and for a reason that matters well beyond publishing.

The case in brief

• Applicant: the estate of George Orwell;
• Signs: ANIMAL FARM and 1984 — the titles of his two best-known novels;
• Goods and services: classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 — books, films, games, educational materials, entertainment services;
• Ground of refusal: descriptiveness of the subject matter, article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;
• Outcome: the Grand Board of Appeal upheld the refusal for both signs;
• Date: 27 May 2026, cases R 1719/2019-G and R 1922/2019-G.

The logic of the refusal

The Board found that the average English-speaking consumer — including in Ireland and Malta — seeing ANIMAL FARM on a book, a film or a game will understand it as an indication of the subject matter, not of commercial origin. People buy Animal Farm because they want that work, not because they trust a producer operating under that name.

The important refinement: descriptiveness is not confined to physical characteristics such as material, size or colour. It extends to thematic content — if the sign directly describes what the goods or services are about, that is enough for refusal.

The arguments that did not work

Notably the applicant was not a third party trying to trade on someone else's fame, but the estate itself — the party with the strongest claim to the titles. It did not help: the assessment is about how the relevant public perceives the sign, not about who owns the underlying rights.

The case drew industry attention: INTA filed observations with the Grand Board, which indicates how significant the question of literary titles as trademarks is regarded.

Not a blanket prohibition

The Board stated expressly that there is no automatic bar on registering titles of literary works. The problem arises where the title is so well known that the public reads it as the content itself, for goods that can carry that content.

For a title with no such recognition, or for unrelated goods, the analysis is different.

Why this matters beyond publishing

Compare this with the opposite situation in our pseudonym case, where an individual's fame helped establish distinctiveness. The difference lies in what the fame points to. Where a sign is associated with a particular person or source, recognition supports registration. Where it is associated with the content itself, recognition defeats it.

The practical point for brand owners: if a name is built on a recognisable cultural reference, a quotation or a widely known title, the very recognition that makes it attractive may be what prevents registration.

If you are clearing culturally loaded names

This analysis applies in Ukraine too: descriptiveness of subject matter is assessed by the same logic, and recognition can cut either way. We advise on whether a name will function as an indication of origin before the filing is made. More on how we work with IP firms.

See also: Free Ukrainian trademark search · Madrid designations in Ukraine