Obelix strikes back as General Court overturns EUIPO ruling

Éditions Albert René, publisher of the Asterix and Obelix series, is the owner of the earlier EU word mark ‘Obelix’, filed in 1996 and covering, inter alia, classes 9, 16, 25, and 41 (electronics, stationery/books, clothing, film production, and entertainment).

In 2020, the Polish company Works 11 Michał Lubiński filed the word mark ‘Obelix’, registered in 2022 for goods in Class 13, including firearms, ammunition, grenades, and explosives. In January 2023, Éditions Albert René filed an application for a declaration of invalidity based, among other grounds, on Article 8(5) of the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR), relying on the reputation of its earlier trademark.

The Cancellation Division of the EUIPO rejected the application for insufficient evidence of genuine use.

The Board of Appeal then examined the case on the assumption that genuine use had been established but nevertheless dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence did not allow a definitive conclusion on reputation and that no link existed between the signs.

This derogatory protection has its equivalent in French law in Article L.711-3(I)(2) of the Intellectual Property Code, the violation of which may lead to invalidity of the registration. The French Court of Cassation recalled this framework in its Société du Tour de France decision of March 19 2025 by censuring the Paris Court of Appeal, which had ruled out the risk of dilution of the reputed trademark without examining whether the later sign weakened the distinctiveness of the reputed trademark.

The applicant raised two pleas in law. The first, alleging a failure to state reasons, complained of a contradiction between the Board of Appeal’s assumption that genuine use had been established and its finding that the term ‘Obelix’ was not shown to be perceived as an indicator of commercial origin.

The second, alleging infringement of Article 8(5), challenged the assessment of reputation. The applicant argued that the Board of Appeal wrongly rejected the evidence relating to the combined use of “Asterix and Obelix”, whereas the symbol ® attached separately to each word demonstrates their perception as two distinct trademarks. It also argued that the Board of Appeal had failed to carry out a global assessment of the link between the signs by omitting the distinctive character of the earlier mark, a factor that is nevertheless relevant according to the case law.

The EUIPO and the intervener maintained that the evidence only demonstrated the popularity of the series but not that the sign ‘Obelix’, taken on its own, was perceived as a mark with a reputation and that the lack of a link between the signs was justified by the radical difference between the goods concerned (weapons intended for a specialised public versus cultural goods for the general public) and by the lack of overlap between the relevant audiences.

On May 13 2026, in case No. T-24/25, the General Court of the EU (Eighth Chamber) rejected the first plea but upheld the second and annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision of November 11 2024.

The General Court found that the assessment of the evidence was flawed and incomplete. It noted that several pieces showed the symbol ® affixed separately next to the terms ‘Obelix’ and ‘Asterix’, which signals to the public that each term constitutes a separate registered mark, fulfilling a function of indicating origin. The court pointed out that there is no rule requiring proof of use of a mark in isolation, independently of any other mark, and that the combined use of two signs does not preclude proof of the reputation of one of them. The Board of Appeal was therefore not entitled to dismiss evidence relating to the combined expression.

The General Court criticised the Board of Appeal for assessing the existence of a link between the trademarks only in light of two factors (similarity of the signs and nature of the goods/services), omitting the distinctive character of the earlier mark – a factor recognised as relevant by the EUIPO.

The court recalled that the existence of such a link must be assessed globally, taking into account all relevant factors, including:

• The degree of similarity between the signs;

• Reputation;

• The nature of the goods and relevant publics;

• The inherent or acquired distinctive character of the earlier mark; and

• Likelihood of confusion.

Omitting a relevant factor makes that assessment incomplete.

Consequently, the court annulled the contested decision on the ground of an error of assessment. The judgment does not close the dispute: the case is referred to the Board of Appeals, which will have to re-examine the reputation of ‘Obelix’ and the existence of a link with the later sign in accordance with the methodology set out by the court.

This judgment provides useful guidance on the evidence required to establish the reputation of a trademark under Article 8(5) of the EUTMR. In particular, the well-known status of a fictional character does not, by itself, establish the reputation of the corresponding sign as a trademark. Evidence must therefore be assessed in light of the perception of the sign by the relevant public.

Importantly, the General Court made clear that evidence cannot be disregarded merely because the trademark is used together with another sign. The use of ‘Obelix’ alongside ‘Asterix’ may therefore contribute to establishing its reputation, since such combined use does not prevent ‘Obelix’ from being perceived separately as a distinct trademark. This is particularly relevant for rights holders whose trademarks are commonly used as part of a broader franchise.

The judgment also confirms that significant differences between the respective goods and relevant publics do not, in themselves, exclude the existence of a link under Article 8(5). These are only factors in the overall assessment, which must also take into account the similarity of the signs, the reputation, and, importantly, the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

Finally, the scope of the ruling should not be overstated. The General Court did not find that the reputation of ‘Obelix’ had been established, nor that all the conditions of Article 8(5) were satisfied. It held that the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the evidence and of the link between the marks was incomplete, leading to the annulment of the contested decision.