EUIPO published the New Common Practice on Slogan Distinctiveness: what businesses need to know

The legal framework for slogan marks

While neither the Trademark Directive No. 2915/2436 ("TMD") nor the EU Trademark Regulation No. 2017/1001 ("EUTMR") defines “slogan,” CP17 uses dictionary sources and case law to characterize it as a short, memorable phrase often used in advertising. The document highlights two core ideas:

1. Slogans are inherently promotional.
2. A slogan may serve as a trademark if it has distinctive character.

This means that the typical marketing function does not exclude trademark protection, but the slogan must still enable consumer to perceive it as a badge of commercial origin. Under Article 4(1)(b) TMD and Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, any sign lacking distinctive character must be refused. This requirement applies equally to slogans.  

Slogans, despite being common in advertising, are not subject to stricter criteria in the assessment of the distinctive character than other types of marks. This aligns with the Court of Justice’s settled case law, which recognizes that slogans may combine promotional and origin-indicating functions. The challenge is thus practical, not legal: while slogans can be distinctive, many fail to meet the threshold because they are perceived as generic advertising. That said, the mere presence of advertising content is not decisive; the issue is whether the slogan possesses qualities that allow consumers to recognise it as a badge of origin rather than a generic marketing message – a sign merely conveys an advertising message in a clear and direct way (e.g., "DREAM IT, DO IT!"), it will likely be rejected as non-distinctive.

The CP17 distinctiveness criteria for slogans

CP17 identifies several factors, drawn from Court of Justice and the General Court case-law, that may indicate that a slogan possesses distinctive character. None is decisive alone; it is the overall impression that matters.

1. Multiple meanings: a slogan capable of several possible interpretations may prompt reflection, requiring cognitive effort (e.g. the word mark "We make up your mind" for cosmetics, plays on cosmetics and decision-making and illustrates how multi-layered meaning can elevate a slogan beyond mere promotion).
2. Play on words: wordplay can enhance memorability and, thus, distinctiveness (e.g. the word mark "Where dresses come true" for clothing, reworks the familiar phrase "where dreams come true" creating linguistic resonance).
3. Conceptual intrigue or surprise: slogans that introduce paradox or unexpected associations (e.g., the word mark "Software with a byte" for computer game software, juxtaposes literal and metaphorical readings ("byte"/"bite")). As rightly emphasised in the CP17 and confirmed by the General Court decisional practice, however, there is a certain threshold of conceptual intrigue or surprise that has to be met. Indeed, the fact that a slogan is an oxymoron, does not preclude the conclusion that it may have a descriptive meaning, as recently confirmed by the General Court in relation to the slogan “HOODLESS HOODIES” for clothing (judgment of 7 April 2025, in case no. T‑206/24).
4. Originality or resonance and/or triggers a cognitive process or interpretative effort: slogans with creative conceptual or emotional impact (e.g. the word mark "Bottle the Chaos" for energy drinks, uses vivid imagery capturing the idea of energy drinks “containing” chaos) or slogans that require the public to pause and think (e.g. the word mark "Getting Words to Work" for, among others, business advisory services, combines words in an unconventional manner).
5. Unusual syntax and/or linguistic devices: slogans with altered structures, alliteration, metaphors, rhyme, or homophones (e.g. the word mark "IT’s APP2You" for computer software, creatively alters the structure of the common English expression "it's up to you", making it more memorable).

Together, these elements help slogans transcend mere promotion and fulfil the trademark function.

When slogans fail: pure promotion and lack of distinctiveness

CP17 highlights examples of slogans rejected because they offer nothing beyond a straightforward promotional message. They tend to be:

• Inspirational or motivational (e.g. "Dream it, Do it!" or "Take Control of Your Data" or "Don't risk your home safety")
• Informative, laudatory or value oriented (e.g. "Pioneering for you" or "Create Delightful Human Environments"). It is worth noting that informative, laudatory, and value-oriented slogans are among the most commonly filed and, in recent years, the most frequently refused by the EUIPO, a trend that is confirmed by the case law of the General Court. Only by way of example, the General Court has recently confirmed the rejection of the slogan “Crave no more” (judgment of 24 September 2025 in case no. T‑33/25) due to its lack of distinctive character in relation to dietary and nutritional supplements, foodstuffs and beverages. The General Court, in line with the guidance provided in the CP17, noted that the wording of this slogan is immediately understandable, lacking any interpretative element capable of distinguishing the goods from those of other undertakings and that therefore the English-speaking part of the public in the European Union, would perceive the sign solely as a laudatory advertising slogan intended to communicate a statement of value of the respective goods.
• Customer-service oriented (“So what do I do with my money?”)
• Advisory (“Don’t risk your home safety”)

In each case, examiners found no originality, no cognitive effort required, and no linguistic creativity, making them unfit to serve as trademarks. Indeed, such slogans are grammatically ordinary and perceived purely as advertising.

Registrable slogans: when creativity meets trademark function

CP17 also provides examples of slogans deemed distinctive because they introduce ambiguity, creative tension, unusual phrasing, or multiple meanings:

• "BEAUTY NEEDS TO TRAVEL" for cosmetics and similar products: abstract meaning requiring interpretation
• "As Green As White Can Be" for chemical preparations: oxymoron triggering conceptual intrigue
• "What do clouds smell like?" for cloud computing services: unexpected question in cloud computing
• "Colder than your ex’s heart" for beers: humorous metaphor in an unexpected context
• “LOOSEN UP IN THE CLOUDS” for air travel: figurative meaning tied to air travel.
• “Elevate Your Senses” for elevators: double meaning (literal vs. metaphorical).

These examples highlight that even simple and advertising message can be distinctive if they create an intellectual step between the words used and the goods/services offered. In all these cases, consumers are likely to pause, reflect, or reinterpret the message, making the slogan memorable and origin-indicative.

Practical implications for businesses

CP17 provides companies with a practical roadmap for protecting slogans within the EU. Indeed, business can now anticipate how EUIPO and national offices will evaluate slogan distinctiveness.

Some key takeaways:

• Avoid purely descriptive, motivational or generic promotional phrases.
• Aim for conceptual depth, wordplay, metaphors, or creative linguistic structures.
• Test whether the slogan requires any cognitive effort on first encounter.

For legal practitioners, CP17 provides a harmonized standard that can be strategically used when drafting or defending slogan applications. For brand owners, it highlights the level of creativity required for a slogan to move from advertising to trademark protection.

Conclusion

The EUIPO’s CP17 marks a significant evolution in the European Union trademark landscape. By harmonising examination standards and clarifying the interpretive criteria for assessing slogan distinctiveness, the EUIPO provides much-needed clarity for businesses operating across the European market. That said, the new practice seems to raise the bar: companies must increasingly adopt creative, surprising, or conceptually rich slogans if they wish to secure trademark protection. Purely promotional messages, no matter how catchy or commercially successful, are likely to be rejected if filed as trademarks.

^{This update has implications across all industries.}

Authored by Maria Luigia Franceschelli, Giulia Ghidini, and Valentina Cerrigone..