Can a comic-book hero stop his name from being used for tanks and grenades? 

According to the General Court, the EUIPO may have dismissed that possibility too quickly.

In its judgment of 13 May 2026 (T-24/25), the General Court annulled a Board of Appeal decision concerning the registration of the word mark OBELIX for military goods in class 13. The invalidity action had been filed by the owner of the Asterix franchise relying on its earlier EU trade mark for OBELIX, registered for, inter alia, books, games, clothing, entertainment and publishing.

In light of the dissimilarity between the goods and services, the key issue was the reputation of the OBELIX mark.

The Board of Appeal had rejected the invalidity action, finding that the evidence submitted demonstrated the popularity of “Asterix & Obelix” as a comic-book series rather than the reputation of OBELIX alone as a trade mark. It found that consumers might perceive OBELIX as the name of a fictional character rather than as an indication of commercial origin.

The General Court held that the Board of Appeal had assessed the evidence incorrectly and incompletely. Regarding the improper assessment of reputation, the court emphasised that:

• a trade mark may acquire reputation even when used together with another mark;
• there is no requirement of independent use in order to become reputed; and
• the use of the ® symbol next to OBELIX supported trade mark perception.

The court criticised the board for disregarding evidence referring to “Asterix & Obelix”. It further found that the Board of Appeal’s analysis of the “link” between the marks was incomplete. By focusing on differences between goods and consumers, it failed to properly assess the mark’s distinctive character and reputation.

The judgment does not automatically lead to a cancellation of the weapons trade mark. Instead, the case was sent back to EUIPO to reconsider whether the famous Gaul’s name deserves broader trade mark protection. Watch this space.

More than a comic hero: how can the law protect fictional characters?

The OBELIX case highlights a broader question that extends far beyond trade mark law: how are fictional characters protected once they evolve from literary creations into commercially valuable assets? In this article we will focuses on this for EU, Germany and the UK.

Copyright law 

Copyright is often the first line of defence. Copyright arises automatically and generally lasts 70 years after the author’s death. However, the downside is that copyright is not harmonised and, thus, can be quite cumbersome to litigate in a multijurisdictional dispute. This is in addition to other issues potentially arising, such as chain of title.

German courts have long recognised that fictional characters themselves (even when just described on a page) may qualify for protection where they are distinguished by a unique combination of physical characteristics, personality traits, abilities and typical modes of behaviour (see, German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), 11.03.1993, I ZR 263/91 – Alcolix; BGH, 11.03.1993, I ZR 264/91 – Asterix-Persiflagen; BGH, 17.07.2013, I ZR 52/12 – Pippi Langstrumpf).

The UK position is comparable following the finding that characters can be protected by copyright as literary works in the Only Fools and Horses case (Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience and Others [2022] EWHC 1379), where there is sufficient complexity and well developed, identifiable elements to the character.

This threshold is generally more difficult to meet in the case of characters based on real persons, as the defining creative elements and individualising characteristics are typically less clearly identifiable. However, a boy wizard with a lightning-shaped scar, round glasses, magical abilities and a distinctive personality is immediately recognisable worldwide.

It is precisely this combination of defining features that copyright law may take into account when assessing whether a fictional character possesses a sufficiently individual identity to enjoy protection.

Trade mark Law

As the OBELIX case demonstrates, fictional characters can also become powerful trade marks. Even where copyright protection expires, trade mark rights may continue to limit commercial use of a fictional character. This was recently confirmed by the Board of Appeal in its “MICKEY IS FREE!” decision of 21 May 2026 (R0201/2026-1). The board held that only the earliest animated short film had entered the public domain, while the character name and depiction remained protected, and that the case did not raise broader copyright issues.

While word marks are the most obvious form of protection, fictional characters may also be protected by other trade mark forms, such as figurative marks, three-dimensional marks or even multimedia marks. Unlike copyright, trade mark protection can potentially last forever, provided the mark remains in use and is regularly renewed.

However, trade mark protection comes with its own challenges. A mark is generally protected only in its registered form, and continued protection depends on genuine use as a trade mark. Rights holders must also think strategically about territorial coverage, ensuring protection in markets where a character may have current or future commercial value.

Aside from that, certain jurisdictions may provide additional protection, such as work title protection (Werktitelschutz) in Germany. In a recent decision concerning the character “Moneypenny” (BGH, 4.12.2025 – I ZR 219/24 – Moneypenny), the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court) emphasised that fictional characters must have achieved a certain degree of recognition and independence from the underlying work before they can function as protected designations in their own right as a work title. In other words, the public must perceive the character as something more than merely a component of a book or film, setting the hurdle quite high.

Design law 

Where a character’s visual appearance is particularly important, design law may offer an additional layer of protection.

Registered designs can protect the aesthetic appearance of a character, provided the design is new and possesses individual character. Timing is crucial: registration should generally occur within 12 months of first disclosure; though ideally beforehand, potentially relying on deferred publication and priority in jurisdictions where this is not an option. Although registered design protection is limited to 25 years, it remains a valuable tool.

In addition, design protection can be obtained without registration through an unregistered design. However, such protection is limited to a period of three years and commences upon the first disclosure of the design to the public within the EU.

Unfair competition law/passing-off

In Germany, unfair competition law also provides protection against imitations or where the public is misled.

The UK can offer protection through the common law tort of passing off where goodwill exists in the character.  Evidence of goodwill in the character will need to be demonstrated, along with some form or misrepresentation or deception, such as marketing to the consumer in such a way as to suggest the third-party good or service is authorised or connected to the original rights holder, and resulting damage.

Conclusion 

The success of a fictional character is rarely predictable. A book character can evolve into a multi-million-dollar franchise.

For that reason, relying on a single form of protection is rarely sufficient. A well-designed protection strategy combines copyright, trade mark, design and unfair competition law (or passing off), while regularly reassessing the portfolio to reflect the character’s commercial development and changing market realities.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: European Union
Decision level: General Court
Parties: Les Éditions Albert René v EUIPO 
Date: 13 May 2026
Citation: T-24/25
Decision: dycip.com/gc-t24-25