Background of the dispute

The claimant owns the rights to the James Bond film franchise, originally based on the novels by Ian Fleming. Miss Moneypenny appears in that universe as the secretary to “M”, the head of MI6. While widely recognised, she is a supporting character rather than the central figure of the series.

The defendants owned German trade marks for “MONEYPENNY” in various classes, including administrative, telecommunications and IT services. The company used the sign primarily for secretarial and business support services and operated domain names incorporating the term.

Legal framework

While copyright aims to protect the actual, original work and/or the content of a work (for example, film, music, image), title protection serves to prevent confusion in the course of trade.

Section 5(3) of the German Trade Mark Act protects titles of works, defined as the names or special designations of printed publications, films, or comparable creative outputs. Protection arises through use of the title in commerce in Germany.

The concept of a “work” includes intangible creative results that, in the perception of the relevant public, can be individually named and serve as objects of legal and commercial transactions. Against this background, the claimant maintained that, as a copyright-protected fictional character, Miss Moneypenny should also qualify as a protected work title under Section 5(3).

The central issue in the case was therefore whether “Miss Moneypenny” could herself be regarded as such an independent work that qualifies her character as a title of work, separate from the films in which the character appears.

Fictional characters as works

The court accepted in principle that fictional characters may qualify as works capable of title protection. However, this requires more than fame or recognisability.

First, the character must be sufficiently concretised in terms of personality and appearance. Second and more crucial, the character must display a degree of independence from the underlying work. Only if a character has achieved autonomy and separate marketability can it function as an independent object in commercial life.

Indicators of independence may include distinctive visual features, pronounced character traits, specific abilities or consistent behavioural patterns. In a series, repeated and characteristic appearances may also support autonomy. However, such independence must stem from the “basic work” itself and not from external exploitation such as merchandising or licensing.

Copyright protection not determinative

The court rejected the reasoning that copyright protection of Miss Moneypenny as a fictional character would automatically entail recognition as a protected work title.

According to established case law, copyright protection for fictional characters requires an unmistakable personality created through a combination of distinctive character traits and recognisable physical features. A purely functional or stereotypical role is insufficient.

Based on the court’s assessment, Miss Moneypenny does not exhibit a sufficiently specific visual characterisation combined with pronounced personality traits to meet that threshold. In any event, the court emphasised that copyright and title of work protection are distinct concepts. Even if copyright protection were assumed, this would not automatically justify title protection.

No sufficient independence

Although survey evidence showed that many people associate “Miss Moneypenny” with the Bond films, this did not support independence. Instead, it confirmed that the character is perceived as part of the broader Bond universe, not as a standalone work. Licensing, publications, and merchandising were also irrelevant. Independence must be evident within the original work itself; external commercial use cannot create autonomy where the character remains narratively dependent.

In short

This ruling confirms the German Federal Court of Jusice’s restrictive approach to title of work protection.

Fame and long-standing public recognition are insufficient. Only fictional characters that have developed true autonomy and independent marketability within the primary work can qualify as protected titles of works.

For rights holders, the judgment highlights three points. First, supporting characters face a high threshold in demonstrating autonomy. Second, copyright and title-of-work protection must be assessed separately, as copyright standards cannot simply be transferred into title-of-work protection. Third, even if protection had been granted, enforcement would likely have been limited to confusion between works, not to the use of the name for unrelated business services.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: Germany
Decision level: German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)
Parties: Amazon v Moneypenny Verwaltungs GmbH
Date: 04 December 2025
Citation: I ZR 219/24
Decision: dycip.com/bgh-title-work