Les Éditions Albert René filed a request for the invalidation of the European Union trademark “Obelix,” owned by WORKS 11 MICHAŁ LUBIŃSKI and registered in Class 13, in connection with various types of firearms. The application for invalidation was based on the earlier European Union trademark “OBELIX” relating to the famous character from children’s comics, and registered for classes 9, 16, 25, 28, and 41 in connection with entertainment and merchandising activities.

However, the application was rejected by EUIPO on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks because the goods were different, and because the evidence provided by the applicant did not allow for the conclusion that the earlier mark enjoyed a strong reputation or that there was a connection between the two marks. For this reason, the applicant filed an appeal with the General Court, arguing that the reputation of the earlier trademark, the relationship between the two trademarks, and the extent to which the contested trademark could damage the reputation of the earlier trademark had not been properly assessed.

The Board of Appeal found that the evidence submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that the term “Obelix” had acquired a reputation as a trademark, but rather that it merely referred to a popular comic book character. However, in the Board’s view, this did not demonstrate that the relevant public could identify the designation OBELIX as an indicator of a specific commercial origin. Although the applicant provided samples and photographs of products featuring the famous character, the Board found that these did not include information on how the term “Obelix” might be perceived by the public as a trademark. The Board concluded that such reputation as a trademark was proven only for the expression “Astérix and Obélix,” but not for the term “Obelix” on its own, because the name identifying the famous comic book series is “Astérix and Obélix.” Therefore, the Board considers that the relevant public will not necessarily perceive the sign “Obelix” on its own as a well-known trademark, but rather will perceive it solely as a reference to a comic book character.

For its part, the applicant argues that the Board of Appeal wrongly questions the distinctiveness of the “Obélix” trademark. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the fact that the mark is associated with a fictional character does not prevent it from serving as an indicator of the commercial origin of the goods in question, and that the term “Obélix” plays a decisive role in the combined expression “Astérix and Obélix,” and can be perceived as an individual mark.

The General Court concludes that the assessment of the reputation of the earlier mark was erroneous, as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account that on several of the applicant’s products the ® symbol appears next to the word “Obélix,” such that the public may perceive that term as a trademark indicating the commercial origin of the goods in question. Likewise, the Board of Appeal cannot disregard a significant portion of the evidence presented merely because it is accompanied by the “Asterix” sign, as these are terms that, despite appearing together, can be perceived separately, as indicated by the ® symbol accompanying each of them.

The Board of Appeal considered that, irrespective of the reputation of the earlier trade mark, there was no link between the conflicting trade marks due to a significant difference between the goods and services covered by those trade marks, and the differences between the relevant markets. Furthermore, it considers that there can’t be an overlap between the relevant public, as the contested trade mark is aimed at professionals with knowledge of weapons, whilst the earlier trade mark is aimed at the general public. For its part, the applicant considers that insufficient weight is being given to the fact that the signs are identical, the exceptionally distinctive character and the high degree of reputation of the earlier trade mark. In this regard, the applicant considers that the contested trade mark may damage the positive image and  reputation of the earlier trade mark. However, EUIPO asserts that the general public will not be aware that the firearms registered under the contested trade mark exist, as these goods are not directed to the general public. Consequently, the registration of the contested trade mark would not result in any detriment to the reputation  of the earlier trade mark.

However, the General Court considers that the Board of Appeal erred in relying solely on the difference between the goods and services and the absence of any overlap between the relevant public to justify the absence of a link between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal failed to take into account the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark, and was therefore unable to assess the existence of a link between the trade marks on the basis of all the relevant factors. For all these reasons, the decision of the Board of Appeal is annulled and the case is referred back to EUIPO for it to review the case in accordance with the criteria set out in this judgment.

 

Judgment of the General Court of May 13, 2026, in Case T-24/25