TugceÌęKucukaliÌęis anÌęIPilogueÌęWriterÌęand incoming LL.M Candidate atÌęUniversity of British Columbia.Ìę
Ìę
Granting trademark protection for personal names is an accepted and common practice in European trademark laws, especially for celebritiesâ names. In contrast, prohibits the registration of a mark that is merely the name of an individual. The decision rendered by the (âCJEUâ) on September 17, 2020 enabled the registration of a trademark consisting of a capital letter âMâ and the surname of the world-renowned football player, LionĂ©l Messi. Lewis Hamiltonâs legal representatives are currently attempting to register the famous Formula One driverâs name as a trademark.

which was brought before the (âEUIPOâ) by the owner of the mark âMASSIâ continued before the CJEU and lasted for 10 years. This opposition had initially enabled the rejection of the trademark application made by the renowned football player to EUIPO. The and CJEU have both ordered that there is no likelihood of confusion due to the conceptual distinctions created by Messiâs fame, and granted the registration of the trademark. As stipulated in the courtâs decision in EUIPO v Messi Cuccittini âthe reputation of the applicant is another consideration to be regarded in risk of confusion examination which has to be conducted globallyâ (para. 44). Although the conceptual difference created by the reputation had not been claimed by Messiâs lawyers, the Court factored in the said reputation when assessing the likelihood of confusion.
The courtâs decision in Messi Cuccittini was important for celebrities who seek to register their names as trademarks. In some cases, semantic content placed on such trademarks may inhibit their successful enforcement. For example, in , Picassoâs heirs were unsuccessful in opposing the aurally and visually similar trademark, âPICAROâ, on the grounds that their âPICASSOâ name was also too famous to not be confused with the said trademark application.
A well-known individual who attempted to benefit from the courtâs decision in Messi Cuccittini was the seven-time world champion Formula One driver, Lewis Hamilton. Hamilton had applied to register his full name as a trademark in the âjewelry productsâ and âretail servicesâ classes. The Swiss luxury watchmaker, âHamiltonâ, which owns trademarks in the same classes, opposed Lewis Hamiltonâs application.
The racecar driverâs lawyers brought an action against the âHamiltonâ trademark, requesting the expungement of the word mark on the grounds that the mark had been filed in bad faith. EUIPO disagreed with this claim and underscored the fact that the Swiss watchmaker had been in the market since 1892, before the racecar driver was born. In this case, perhaps due to made about the decision in Messi Cuccittini, the Office stipulated that âthere is no ânatural rightâ for a person to have his or her own name registered as a trademark when that would infringe third partiesâ rightsâ (para. 40). Hamiltonâs lawyersâ claim about the conceptual difference is still pending before EUIPO. The claim of the conceptual difference created by Messiâs fame superseding any visual and aural similarities may apply to the âLewis Hamiltonâ and âHamiltonâ trademarks. Unlike the applicantâs claims in Messi Cuccittini, Hamiltonâs representatives had made a point to mention the racecar driverâs fame in their initial application before EUIPO.
Both âLewis Hamiltonâ and âHamiltonâ trademarks are word marks. They are arguably more similar visually than âMassiâ and âMessiâ. Indeed, the court had emphasized the influence of a first name from a conceptual point of view in , where Barbara Becker had managed to register her full name despite her application being opposed on the grounds of the risk of confusion with the earlier trademark, âBECKERâ. Considering Messiâs full name, Lionel AndrĂ©s Messi Cuccittini, the trademark application may not be deemed to imply a name-surname reference.
The Messi Cuccittini decision may be a game-changer for Lewis Hamilton in that his trademark dispute may not be as prolonged as Messiâs. Even though prior registration is important in claiming trademark protections, celebritiesâ reputations could also be considered in opposition proceedings or applications for the registration of marks associated with branded products.
