The Case of Puck Schrover’s Face as a Trademark

A trademark application was filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (« EUIPO ») by PS Holding B.V. to register a figurative mark depicting the face of Dutch model Puck Schrover. The application covered the following classes:

Class 35: Services of models and photo models for advertising or sales promotion.

Class 41: Modelling services of mannequins and models for entertainment or recreational purposes.

Initial Refusal by EUIPO Examination Division

The EUIPO Examination Division rejected the application under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR), which stipulates that trademarks must possess a distinctive character to be eligible for registration. The decision was based on the following key findings:

• The applied-for mark was deemed a natural representation of a young woman’s head/face, which does not inherently allow consumers to distinguish the applicant’s services from similar appearances of a different commercial origin.
• Distinctiveness refers to a mark’s ability to differentiate services. While some faces may have distinctive features (e.g., Barbra Streisand’s nose or Donald Trump’s hair), the face in question lacked such distinctive characteristics.
• The Division emphasised that images of models’ faces are commonly used in advertising and the fashion industry. Since the applied-for mark does not possess any distinctive characteristic that would leave a lasting impression on consumers’ memory to differentiate the services, the depiction of a face alone was not considered capable of serving as an indicator of commercial origin.
• Despite the applicant’s claim that Puck Schrover had gained international recognition by working with renowned fashion houses such as Chanel and Dior, the submitted evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the relevant public perceives her face as a distinctive commercial sign based on its use.

Appeal and Reversal of the Decision

PS Holding B.V. appealed the decision to the Fourth Board of Appeal (“BoA”), arguing that the applied-for mark possessed both inherent distinctiveness and distinctiveness through use. On 30 January 2024, the BoA overturned the refusal, citing the following considerations:

• The BoA acknowledged that a photographic representation of a specific person’s face can serve as a source identifier, distinguishing services provided by that individual.
• The BoA referenced previous EUIPO decisions where other portraits had been registered as trademarks, reinforcing the argument that such images can function as source indicators.

Conclusion

Following the BoA’s decision, the trademark application for Puck Schrover’s face proceeded to publication for opposition and was subsequently registered on 6 June 2024, under registration number 018864324. This ruling reaffirms that a human face, particularly that of a well-known individual, can serve as a trademark, provided it is shown to function as an indicator of commercial origin.

This case underscores the evolving approach of the EUIPO toward personality-based trademarks, and highlights the increasing role of personal identity in trademark law, particularly for public figures in industries reliant on individual branding.