Why ‘I ♥’ Is Not a Trade Mark: The General Court Clarifies the Boundaries of Protection
On 9 July 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered a judgment of considerable doctrinal significance for European trade mark law, confirming the refusal to register a figurative sign consisting of the letter “I” followed by a red heart symbol as an EU trade mark for clothing. The decision, rendered in joined cases T-304/24 to T-306/24, reaffirms the centrality of distinctiveness within the architecture of the EU trade mark regime and clarifies, once more, the limits of proprietary claims over expressions embedded in common cultural vocabulary.
The applications at issue had been filed in 2022 by the German company sprd.net before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The applicant sought protection for three variants of the sign, each comprising a capital “I” and a red heart device, to be affixed in specific positions on garments such as T-shirts, sweatshirts and pullovers. The marks were characterised as position marks, with the applications specifying placement on areas including the left chest and the neck region of the clothing items.
EUIPO refused registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, on the ground that the signs were devoid of distinctive character. In its assessment, the Office concluded that the relevant public would perceive the combination of the letter “I” and a heart symbol as the immediately intelligible expression “I love.” Such a message, it reasoned, constitutes a commonplace and universally understood declaration of affection, widely used in everyday language and commercial ornamentation. As such, it would not be interpreted as indicating the commercial origin of the goods concerned, but rather as a decorative or promotional motif.
On appeal, the applicant argued, inter alia, that the specific stylisation of the sign and its designation as a position mark sufficed to confer the requisite distinctiveness. The General Court rejected these submissions in their entirety. It reiterated that the essential function of a trade mark under EU law is to guarantee to consumers the identity of origin of the marked goods or services. A sign that is perceived primarily as a general expression, laudatory statement or decorative element fails to fulfil that function, irrespective of its graphic simplicity or aesthetic appeal.
In its reasoning, the Court placed particular emphasis on consumer perception. The relevant public, composed of average consumers of clothing within the European Union, would not engage in analytical dissection of the sign. Instead, it would apprehend the “I ♥” combination as an immediately recognisable and semantically complete message. The heart symbol, far from operating as an abstract or distinctive device, functions in contemporary visual language as a conventional substitute for the verb “to love.” The sign, therefore, conveys a concept that is both direct and commonplace. In the absence of additional elements capable of transforming that message into an indicator of commercial provenance, the sign remains inherently non-distinctive.
The Court further addressed the applicant’s reliance on the classification of the signs as position marks. It reaffirmed that the mere specification of a sign’s placement on goods does not obviate the requirement of distinctiveness. While the position of a mark may, in certain circumstances, contribute to its capacity to identify origin, such capacity must derive from the overall impression produced by the sign in situ. Where the sign itself is intrinsically banal or informational, its positioning on a garment does not transmute it into a badge of origin. In the present case, the Court found that the placements claimed were typical of decorative elements on clothing and would not be perceived by consumers as unusual or source-identifying.
The judgment thus consolidates an established line of jurisprudence concerning the registration of slogans, promotional expressions and simple figurative elements. EU trade mark law does not exclude such signs per se; however, it requires that they possess, whether inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, the capacity to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of others. Expressions that form part of the common linguistic or symbolic repertoire of the public are unlikely to satisfy this threshold without compelling evidence that consumers have come to associate them specifically with a single commercial source.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the decision carries broader implications for brand strategy within the European Union. It underscores the difficulty of securing exclusive rights over symbols and phrases that operate as cultural shorthand rather than as proprietary identifiers. The commercial popularity of a motif does not equate to legal distinctiveness; on the contrary, widespread and generic use may militate against protection. Undertakings seeking to protect minimalist or message-driven designs must therefore consider whether the sign, in its totality, performs the essential trade mark function or merely embellishes the product.
In affirming EUIPO’s refusal, the General Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of European trade mark law: that exclusivity is justified only where a sign serves to distinguish, not where it appropriates the ordinary language of sentiment. The ruling delineates, with doctrinal clarity, the boundary between protectable commercial identifiers and expressions that remain part of the shared semiotic landscape of the internal market.
Leave us a message:
