Can the name of a fictional character be a Trade Mark? Lessons from Obélix

The General Court’s judgment in Case T‑24/25 (OBELIX) provides guidance on the treatment of trade marks derived from fictional characters, particularly in the context of reputation and consumer perception.

Background

In 2022, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) registered the word mark OBELIX for goods relating to firearms, ammunition and explosives, in the name of a Polish individual. Les Éditions Albert René, the publisher of the comic book series Astérix & Obélix, applied to have this registration invalidated on the basis of its earlier European Union trade mark (EUTM) for OBELIX covering, among others, media, clothing, toys and entertainment services. The publisher relied on a likelihood of confusion between the marks under comparison (Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR) and the damage caused by this contested registration to the reputation of OBELIX (Article 8(5) EUTMR).

Both the Cancellation Division and the EUIPO Board of Appeal (BOA) rejected the invalidation action, finding that the reputation of OBELIX had not been sufficiently established.

The BOA found that the evidence submitted by Les Éditions Albert René did not demonstrate that the relevant public would perceive the term OBELIX as an indication of commercial origin for the goods and services at issue. In its view, the mere presence of OBELIX‑themed products on the market does not, in itself, reveal how consumers understand the sign as a trade mark. The BOA further held that, although Astérix & Obélix is a well-known comic book series, this does not mean that consumers would interpret the sign OBELIX, when used alone on products such as toys, books, DVDs or board games, as a trade mark or reputed mark; rather, they would likely regard it as a simple reference to the fictional character.

Les Éditions Albert René filed an appeal against the BOA’s decision before the General Court and notably argued that the association of a sign with a fictional character does not automatically preclude its ability to function as a trade mark. In particular, it submitted that the sign OBELIX, whether used alone or alongside ASTERIX, does not merely describe the subject matter of goods (such as comics or merchandise), but instead serves as an indicator of commercial origin.

The General Court’s decision

The General Court sided with the publisher, finding the BOA’s assessment incomplete and flawed.

It reiterated that the reputation of a mark must be assessed by taking into consideration all the relevant factors of the case (including the market share held by the mark, the intensity, duration and geographical extent of its use and the scale of investment made in promoting the mark), even if each of those factors, taken individually, is not sufficient to demonstrate it. This multifactorial assessment underscores that reputation cannot be presumed, even for widely recognised cultural references. Concrete evidence remains essential.

1. The ® symbol matters – a decisive factor overlooked by the Board, according to the General Court, was the use of the ® symbol alongside the term “Obelix” (and “Obélix”) on various products. The Court stressed that:

• The presence of the ® symbol signals to consumers that the sign is a registered trade mark;
• This indication shapes consumer perception by indicating commercial origin;
• Where both “Asterix” and “Obelix” appear with separate ® symbols, they are presented as distinct trade marks, each functioning independently.

For the relevant public, such labelling is highly probative. It demonstrates that “Obelix” is actively used in a trade mark sense.

2. Combined use is still use – for the Court, the BOA also erred in discounting evidence showing the use of “Obelix” in combination with “Asterix”. In this regard, the Court reiterated an important principle of EU trade mark law: there is no requirement that a trade mark must be used independently of other marks to establish genuine use or reputation. In practice, many brands rely on co-branding or composite signs. The Court emphasised that:

• Simultaneous use of multiple trade marks is permissible;
• Such use does not necessarily alter the distinctive character of each individual mark;
• Even within the combined expression “Asterix & Obelix”, the term “Obelix” can still be perceived separately, particularly where visual cues (such as separate ® symbols) reinforce this distinction.

Accordingly, the Board should not have dismissed this evidence outright. Instead, it should have assessed whether the combined use still allowed “Obelix” to function as a distinct indicator of origin.

3. Failure to properly assess the “link” required under Article 8(5) EUTMR – finally, the Court addressed the BOA’s flawed analysis under Article 8(5) EUTMR. EUIPO conceded at the hearing that its assessment was incomplete. In particular:

• in order to assess such a link, it would be necessary to establish a chronology and a degree of reputation, which was not done in the present case, since EUIPO relied on a presumption of reputation;
• it acknowledged that the uniqueness and inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark are also factors to be taken into account;

Consequently, the BOA was incorrect to focus solely on the difference between the goods and services in question and the absence of any overlap between the relevant publics as justification for the absence of a link between the marks at issue. The Court found this approach insufficient. The existence of a “link” between marks requires a global assessment of all relevant factors. By failing to do so, the BOA infringed Article 8(5) EUTMR.

Outcome – Consequently, the General Court annulled the BOA’s decision.

Key takeaways for practitioners

This judgment offers several practical lessons:

• Fictional character names can function as trade marks: their narrative origin does not preclude trade mark significance if consumers perceive them as indicators of origin.
• The ® symbol matters: its presence can play a decisive role in shaping consumer perception and evidencing trade mark use.
• Combined use is valid evidence: marks need not be used independently; co-branding does not negate genuine use of a brand or distinctiveness.
• Reputation requires proof—not assumptions: Even famous cultural references must be supported by concrete evidence of use and market recognition.

Conclusion

The Obelix decision confirms that the boundary between cultural reference and commercial indicator is not fixed, but depends on how a sign is used and perceived in the marketplace. For brand owners leveraging fictional universes and character merchandising, the ruling is a welcome affirmation: with the right evidence and presentation, a comic book hero can also carry serious trade mark force.