The General Court revisits the issue of the earlier trademark’s reputation: the Obelix v Obelix case

19 Jun 2026

General Court, T-24/25, 13 May 2026

In its judgment of 13 May 2026, the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal in the proceedings brought by the publishing house Les Editions Albert René – holder of the rights to the famous “Asterix and Obelix” series – against the Polish company Works 11, owned by Michal Lubinski, specialized in armaments and military equipment.

In this judgment, the General Court provided numerous useful guidelines regarding proof of the earlier trademark’s reputation pursuant to Article 8(5) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001.

According to the judges, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of both the actual reputation of the earlier trademark and the link between the trademarks in question.

With regard to the first aspect, the Court held, indeed, that the French publishing house’s use of the “®” symbol alongside the term “OBELIX” was sufficient to lead the public to perceive it as a trademark and not merely as a simple reference to the series’ co-protagonist. The judges also held that the sign “OBELIX” was capable of being individually perceived as a trademark, regardless of its use alongside the sign “ASTERIX”, a fortiori when marked with the “®” symbol.

With regard to the second aspect, instead, the Board of Appeal erred in limiting its assessment to just two factors: the distance between the goods and services claimed by the respective trademarks, and consequently the lack of an overlap between their respective target audiences. Indeed, such an assessment requires a holistic approach, thus requires several factors to be considered at the same time, such as: the degree of similarity between the trademarks, the nature of the goods and services, the degree of reputation of the earlier trademark, the likelihood of confusion among the public, and the inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the earlier trademark.

If it had been an Italian trademark, Les Editions Albert René could have invoked before the IPTO (Italian Patent and Trademark Office) the protection afforded by Article 8.3 of the Italian Industrial Property Code to the names of fictional characters as well, and this would have significantly reduced the burden of argument and proof required of the trademark proprietor. As this was a European trademark, this was not possible; however, despite the inherent difficulties in protecting the names of characters from literary and audiovisual works as trademarks, this possibility does exist, as clearly illustrated by this interesting ruling. Provided that effective proof of the character’s reputation and the public’s perception of its use in a distinctive manner is given.

Giovanni Volpi