The George Orwell Trademark Cases

In December 2025 and May 2026, the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued final decisions in three trademark applications – namely “GEORGEORWELL”, “ANIMALFARM” and “1984” – dismissing the appeals in each case and upholding the examiners’ refusals. The proceedings lasted over eight years and concern a long‑debated legal issue: the registrability of a famous author’s name and the titles of his literary works for content‑related goods and services.

I. Background

On 6 March 2018, the administrators of the estate of Sonia Brownell Orwell, George Orwell’s second wife, filed three European Union trade mark applications for the word marks “GEORGEORWELL”, “ANIMALFARM” and “1984”. The applications covered a broad range of goods and services, including digital media, printed matter, clothing, games and entertainment services, in Classes 9, 16, 28 (only for “ANIMALFARM”) and 41.

George Orwell was an immensely influential British novelist, journalist and social commentator of the 20th century. His masterpieces Animal Farm and *1984* are globally recognised literary classics, serving as benchmarks in world literature for political allegory and dystopian narrative respectively. Orwell died in 1950; under EU copyright rules, his works entered the public domain on 1 January 2020. In order to preserve control over the commercial use of the author’s name and the classic book titles, the estate administrators sought to fill the rights vacuum following the expiry of copyright by means of trade mark registration, thereby maintaining ongoing control over the commercial exploitation of the relevant IP.

The applications took over eight years, and ultimately the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the first‑instance decisions refusing registration.

II. Main Grounds of the Decisions

In the “GEORGEORWELL” case, the Board of Appeal found that, for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41 having “content” as their core characteristic, the sign “GEORGEORWELL” would be immediately and unequivocally understood by the relevant public as referring to the famous British author, and thus inherently indicates that those goods and services have as their subject matter George Orwell, his works or the ideas derived therefrom.

The Board pointed out that “Animal Farm” and “1984” are included in Oxford Reference and Encyclopædia Britannica; the signs are such that consumers, upon seeing them, would regard them as indicating that the goods and services relate to the works. According to Oxford Reference, Animal Farm is defined as a fable by George Orwell, published in 1945, satirising Russian Communism under Stalin. It recounts how the farm animals, led by pigs, rebel against the farmer, but power eventually corrupts the leaders, and includes the famous line: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Encyclopædia Britannica explains *1984* as a novel by British writer George Orwell, published in 1949, which is a dystopian novel warning against totalitarianism, set in an imagined future and focusing on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance and repressive regulation of individuals and behaviour. The “chilling dystopia” left a deep impression on readers, and its ideas entered mainstream culture. Concepts such as “Big Brother” and “Thought Police” created in the novel have become synonymous with modern social and political ills.

The Board considered that, in terms of the author’s reputation and recognition, Orwell’s works are globally recognised, widely taught and frequently adapted; they are constantly republished, adapted and analysed. There are numerous awards, foundations, lectures, public commemorations and street names bearing Orwell’s name. More than 75 years after his death, his reputation endures. “Orwellian” has entered English dictionaries as an adjective and noun. Consumers expect books, films and educational services bearing the sign “GEORGEORWELL” to concern his life, works or themes.

The Board specifically rejected the applicant’s argument that “reputation should not constitute an obstacle to registration”. It held that the primary function of a book title is to distinguish a specific work, enabling the public to identify and refer to that literary creation; it functions as a reference to content, rather than as an indication of commercial origin. The essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the commercial origin of the goods or services. The very high reputation of a literary work, however, causes its title to become “fixed” as a reference to the work itself, thereby losing the capacity to function as a badge of commercial origin.

III. Core Issues and the Board’s Responses

(1) Whether reference could be made to the Anne Frank trademark registration precedent

The applicant argued that in earlier cases, book titles such as The Diary of Anne Frank had been successfully registered as trade marks, and the present cases were similar and should follow precedent. The Board, however, pointed out that the two works are of a different nature: The Diary of Anne Frank is a factual record with a fixed narrative, not readily susceptible to reinterpretation; whereas Animal Farm is a political allegory that has been adapted countless times into films and plays, and its theme has “entered the language” and become a universal cultural symbol. The present cases are closer to the rejected The Jungle Book, as both are allegories that have undergone multiple adaptations, and the public no longer associates them with a single commercial source. Each case must be examined independently on its own facts; prior registration decisions are not legally binding.

(2) Whether the fact that copyright had not fully expired could give rise to a presumption of good faith in seeking registration

The applicant submitted that Animal Farm and *1984* were still protected by copyright, and that according to EUIPO guidelines, during the subsistence of copyright, a trade mark application should be presumed to be filed in good faith and should in principle be accepted for registration. The Board pointed out that copyright and trade mark rights are distinct: copyright protects intellectual creations, whereas trade marks protect commercial origin. The copyright status does not affect trade mark examination; consumers, when purchasing goods, do not know or care whether copyright has expired; they recognise the title. If registration were allowed, after copyright expiry the trade mark rights could still be renewed indefinitely, effectively achieving de facto perpetual control over works in the public domain, which runs counter to the purpose of fixed copyright protection terms.

(3) Whether the fact that a book title serves to distinguish one work from another means that it possesses distinctiveness

The applicant argued that the function of a title is to distinguish one work from another (e.g., distinguishing Animal Farm from *1984*), and therefore it naturally has a “distinguishing” function and should be regarded as having distinctiveness. The Board pointed out that trade marks distinguish “commercial origin”, not “the work itself”. A book title tells consumers “which story this is”, whereas a trade mark tells consumers “who produced the goods” (e.g., Penguin Books). Animal Farm and *1984* are so well‑known that consumers’ first reaction upon seeing them is “Orwell’s novels”, not “goods from a particular publisher”, and therefore they cannot perform the trade mark function of indicating commercial origin.

(4) Whether the descriptive use defence could cure the registration defects

The applicant argued that even if the marks were registered, third parties could rely on Article 14 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation to defend against infringement on grounds of “descriptive use”, and therefore the marks should not be refused on descriptiveness grounds. The Board pointed out that Article 14 is a post‑registration “infringement defence” provision, whereas Article 7 is a pre‑registration “absolute ground for refusal” provision. The two do not overlap. The possibility of a later defence cannot justify approving, at the examination stage, a trade mark that should not be registered. The examination of registrability must be independent and strict.

IV. Comparative Practice and the Chinese Approach

In its decisions, the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal additionally noted that member states such as Germany and France already provide special protection for work titles under their domestic laws (e.g., Germany’s system for the protection of commercial designations). The Board encouraged EU legislators to consider creating a unified EU right for the protection of work titles, in order to address the legitimate interest in protecting such titles.

In Germany, the Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and Other Signs (Markengesetz) uniformly regulates trade marks, commercial designations and geographical indications. Section 5 of that Act explicitly provides that business symbols and work titles shall be protected as commercial signs. Work titles are defined as the names or special designations of printed publications, film works, musical works, dramatic works or other similar works. This protection does not require registration; it arises automatically through use in commercial transactions and enjoys the same legal status as trade marks.

In France, Article L. 112‑4 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that the title of an intellectual work, once it has an original character, is protected in the same manner as the work itself. Even where the work itself is no longer protected, no one may use its title to distinguish works of the same kind in circumstances likely to cause confusion.

In China, the protection of work titles, character names and personal names in trade mark examination is usually based on Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which concerns “prior rights”.

In the early (2001) “Five Golden Flowers” case, the Yunnan Higher People’s Court held that the title of the film literary script Five Golden Flowers could not be independently protected under copyright law. The court found that “Five Golden Flowers”, as a work title, was merely one element of the complete work and did not have the attributes required to constitute a “work” within the meaning of copyright law. The court also pointed out that the defendant’s use of “Five Golden Flowers” as a trade mark was lawful and valid and did not constitute copyright infringement. This judgment established the basic position that work titles are not, in principle, independently entitled to copyright protection. At that time, the title was not protected merely because it was an element of the complete work, without regard to the work’s reputation and other factors.

In the 2013 “The Smiling, Proud Wanderer” (Xiao Ao Jiang Hu) case, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the courts found that The Smiling, Proud Wanderer, as a well‑known martial arts novel by Mr. Jin Yong, enjoyed a high degree of reputation and influence among the relevant public, and that the words “Xiao Ao Jiang Hu” had established a stable corresponding relationship with Mr. Jin Yong. The disputed mark “New Xiao Ao Jiang Hu” was substantially similar to the work title, and the designated services, such as online games, fell within the derivative service sectors typically associated with literary works, which was likely to cause the public to mistakenly believe there was an association with the author. The right to commercialisation of the work title The Smiling, Proud Wanderer by Mr. Jin Yong, relied upon in seeking invalidation of the disputed mark, was expressly recognised as a lawful civil right or interest covered by “prior rights” under Article 32 of the Trademark Law.

In the “Jordan” cases (2012‑2016), the Supreme People’s Court clarified that the right to a name may be protected as a prior right under the Trademark Law. The protection of the Chinese transliteration of a foreign natural person’s name is subject to three conditions: (1) it has a certain reputation in China and is known to the relevant public; (2) the relevant public uses that specific name to refer to the natural person; and (3) that specific name has established a stable corresponding relationship with the natural person. Because “Jordan” (Qiaodan) had established a stable corresponding relationship with Michael Jordan, and the Jordan company had obvious subjective bad faith in registering the marks, the court found that the disputed marks infringed his prior name right. It should be noted, however, that Michael Jordan is a basketball player, which differs from Orwell’s identity as an author.

In China, the examination of trade marks concerning work titles and names is directly or indirectly related to Article 32 of the Trademark Law. That Article provides: “A trademark application shall not prejudice the prior rights of others, nor shall it be used to preemptively register, by unfair means, a trademark that another person has already used and has acquired a certain influence.” This provision has become the core legal basis for Chinese courts to protect work titles, character names and personal names in trademark authorisation and validation proceedings.

V. Summary

This article reviews the final refusal decisions of the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal in the three trade mark applications for “GEORGEORWELL”, “ANIMALFARM” and “1984”. Because George Orwell is so famous that his name and the titles of his works have, in effect, lost their capacity to indicate the commercial source of goods – a case of “too much of a good thing”. Of note, the Board in its decisions proactively cited the domestic law protection practices for work titles in Germany and France, and called for the establishment of a unified EU system for the protection of work titles.

Turning to China, from the “Five Golden Flowers” case which denied copyright protection for a work title, to the “The Smiling, Proud Wanderer” case which brought the commercialisation right of a work title within the scope of “prior rights” under Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and to the “Jordan” case which set out the requirements for protection of name rights, the application of the Trademark Law has always sought to balance the public interest and the legitimate claims of rights holders. The EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal in the present cases also gave a clear answer: the trade mark registration system should not be used as a tool for “secondary enclosure” of works in the public domain; any legislative gap in the protection of work titles should be filled by legislators after fully considering the interests of all parties.