EUIPO, Opposition Division, 4 March 2026, B 3 237 391
Protecting works of fiction, their titles or their characters under trademark law is not always straightforward. The main argument against protection as a trademark is that the sign will not be perceived by consumers as an indication of the origin of the goods but as a purely descriptive indication of the cinematographic work or one of its characters.
In the absence of a trademark protecting the work’s iconic elements, it can be difficult to challenge third-party applications for trademarks inspired, for example, by characters.
Conversely, the existence of a registered trademark may enable its proprietor to successfully oppose parodies or puns consisting of imitations inspired by iconic elements of a film.
HBO thus successfully opposed the application for a European Union trademark, ‘ ’, filed by a Polish company in Class 28 for drones (toys) and Class 41 for event organization and management services, entertainment services, and education, instruction and training services.
HBO based its opposition on several earlier trademarks, including a European Union word mark ‘GAME OF THRONES’ filed on 11 January 2010, notably in class 28 for toys and class 41 for education and entertainment services.
In the context of these opposition proceedings, the EUIPO strictly applied trademark law by comparing the goods and services as well as the signs in question.
The services covered by the contested trademark application, being included within the broader scope of those covered by the earlier trademark, are deemed to be identical.
Regarding the comparison of the signs, the EUIPO finds a very high degree of visual similarity and considers the signs to be very similar phonetically. Conceptually, both signs refer to the idea of play.
As regards the figurative elements of the contested sign, the drone propeller included in the letter ‘O’ of ‘DRONES’ is regarded as a decorative element with a low degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question (drones).
Unsurprisingly, the EUIPO concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion, as the trademarks coincide almost entirely in their verbal elements. The differences are not considered sufficient to create a distance between the signs such as to exclude with certainty any likelihood of confusion between them. Even if the element ‘DRONES’ of the contested trademark were considered to evoke a concept related to drones, it largely coincides with the element situated in the same position in the earlier mark (THRONE).
The contested trademark is therefore rejected for all goods and services.
For reasons of procedural economy, the EUIPO states that it did not examine the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trademark, as the outcome would have been the same (HBO had in fact also invoked the reputation of its trademark and produced numerous supporting documents).
It should be noted that the applicant did not respond to the opposition, undoubtedly aware of the weakness of their application. The question of the use of the earlier trademark, registered more than five years ago for the goods and services specified in the application, was therefore not examined, as the applicant had not raised it.
The question of registering a film title or a character’s name as a trademark must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
