German Federal Patent Court (FPC), decision of 19 January 2026, case 26 W (pat) 34/17 – Neuschwansteiner

Introduction – A castle, a trade mark and the power of aura

Schloss Neuschwanstein needs little introduction. The famous castle in southern Germany was built in the 19th century under King Ludwig II of Bavaria. It is described as a fairy-tale castle, the model for the Walt Disney logo and the Cinderella Castle, a place of “romantic”, “royal” or “mystical” flair, surrounded by legends relating to King Ludwig II, the “fairy-tale king”. But can the sheer aura of such a place be powerful enough to prevent its name from functioning as a trade mark for beer?

In its “Neuschwansteiner”-decision, the German Federal Patent Court (“FPC”) grappled with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on geographical indications and arrived at a different conclusion than the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”). In doing so, it established a legal standard that is likely to reverberate well beyond Bavaria.

Background – A trade mark registered, then challenged

Back in 2005, the word mark “Neuschwansteiner” was registered at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (“GPTO”) for “coffee; tea; beers; non-alcoholic beverages, to the extent included in this class” in Class 30. Ten years later, it was challenged on the basis of lack of distinctiveness and descriptive character. The GPTO declared the mark invalid, despite the fact that the EU trade mark “NEUSCHWANSTEIN” had been upheld for similar goods. The trade mark owner appealed to the FPC.

The Decision – Aura triumphs over geography

The FPC dismissed the appeal and upheld the declaration of invalidity.

1. A geographical indication as unlikely manufacturing site 

The GPC confirmed that “Neuschwansteiner” was the German adjectival form of “Neuschwanstein”, designating the famous Bavarian castle. The judges noted that beers were commonly named after places in adjectival form and that breweries were frequently located in castles. So far, so plausible. 

However, the castle itself proved a rather unrealistic manufacturing site. Perched on a rock, accessible via a single narrow road, receiving over one million visitors per year, owned by the State of Bavaria and listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it was simply implausible that a beverage manufacturer would ever be permitted to set up business there. The fact that beverages were sold inside the castle (to the throngs of tourists, one presumes) was deemed irrelevant: By reference to the CJEU’s Bundesverband Souvenir judgment (case C-488/16 P, regarding the trade mark “NEUSCHWANSTEIN”), the place of sale alone could not designate inherent characteristics linked to geographical origin.

2. The “favourable response” variant at the heart of the matter

With the manufacturing-based route closed, the FPC moved on to the more legally adventurous part of its analysis. The CJEU’s Windsurfing Chiemsee judgment (C-108/97 and C-109/97) recognised that geographical names may need to be kept free not only where they designate a place of production, but also where they are capable of “[influencing] consumer tastes by, for instance, associating the goods with a place that may give rise to a favourable response” (para. 26). 

The FPC noted that the castle carried a powerful array of associations – fairy-tale romance, royal splendour, Bavarian mystique – anchored in the legend of King Ludwig II and reinforced by the castle’s global fame as the inspiration for the Walt Disney logo. By attaching the adjectival suffix, “Neuschwansteiner” imported that entire constellation of imagery directly onto the goods.

The trade mark owner contended that this kind of diffuse, romantic imagery bore no meaningful relationship to the practical reality of beer. The FPC was unconvinced. Beverages and beer in particular were products consumed for enjoyment, and aspirational, lifestyle-driven marketing was well established in the sector. The court pointed to existing advertising such as “Ein königlicher Genuss” (“a royal pleasure”) and “Heute ein König!” (“A king for a day!”) as illustrations of how readily royal associations were mobilised to sell drinks. 

On the central legal question, the FPC parted ways with the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had held that the “favourable response” variant presupposed at least the realistic possibility of manufacture at the relevant location (EUIPO, case R2528/2011-4 – Manhatten, and case 
R0028/2014-5 – Neuschwanstein). The FPC considered this reading too restrictive and inconsistent with the broader scope of Windsurfing Chiemsee (C-108/97 and C-109/97), which expressly contemplated links other than manufacturing – including the place where goods were designed. The FPC held that a purely ideational connection between the place and the goods could be sufficient, at least where a famous location’s aura was being commercially harnessed. Confining the “favourable response” variant to cases where manufacturing is also conceivable would, in the court’s view, deprive it of any autonomous function alongside the classical ground of descriptiveness.

3. Lack of distinctiveness

The FPC’s finding of descriptiveness carried a further consequence. Because “Neuschwansteiner” served to transfer the castle’s image onto the goods rather than to identify a specific commercial source, it equally failed the distinctiveness requirement. The two grounds of invalidity thus reinforced one another.

4. No referral to the CJEU — but the BGH will have its say

The FPC declined to refer the matter to the CJEU, taking the view that the divergence between its own conclusions and the outcome of the EU trade mark proceedings concerning “NEUSCHWANSTEIN” was attributable to differences in the underlying facts established by the respective first-instance bodies, not to any conflicting interpretation of EU law.

Nonetheless, the FPC granted leave to appeal to the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), acknowledging that the precise contours of the “favourable response” variant remain unsettled. The matter is pending before the BGH under docket number I ZB 10/26 and the BGH will be able to review the degree of connection that must exist between a geographical designation and the goods or services at issue, and the extent to which the variant can operate independently of any realistic prospect of manufacture at the designated location. Depending on how the BGH rules, a reference to the CJEU may yet follow – and with it, potentially, a definitive answer for all of Europe.

Implications / Key takeaways – An ideational link may be enough, but for how long?

The Neuschwansteiner decision is undoubtedly bold, but it is not the end of the road. By holding that a purely ideational connection between a place and the goods at issue can suffice to establish a descriptive geographical indication, the FPC has staked out a position that departs markedly from established EUIPO practice – and one that raises enough legal questions to make the upcoming BGH proceedings a genuinely open contest.

There are strong arguments to be made on appeal. “Geographical origin”, read literally, concerns the place where goods are produced. While the CJEU has extended that concept to other tangible links such as the place of design, a purely ideational relationship is a further step, and arguably one that sits uneasily with the requirement that relevant characteristics be sufficiently precise and objective. The EUIPO Boards of Appeal took exactly that view in Neuschwanstein and Manhattan. Equally, the denial of distinctiveness is open to challenge: a sign can simultaneously evoke an aspirational image and function as an indicator of commercial origin — the history of successful brand extensions is full of examples, so the two should by no means be mutually exclusive.

The BGH has been expressly invited to clarify the scope and requirements of the “favourable response” variant, and a further reference to the CJEU remains possible. Until a final answer emerges, the legal landscape remains unsettled, which means that owners of registered marks drawing on the prestige of famous locations retain meaningful arguments. This is a developing area of law, and the outcome of the BGH proceedings will be followed closely across Europe.

The full judgment of the FPC can be found here.