The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that movie character “Miss Moneypenny” from the James Bond series is not protected as a title under German Trademark Law. On the basis of this assessment, a lawsuit brought by the rights holder of “James Bond” was dismissed in the final instance. The rights holder had objected to the use of ‘Moneypenny’ and “My Moneypenny” by a provider of secretarial and assistance services (BGH, judgement of December 4, 2025, file number: I ZR 219/24).  The decision is relevant for the long-controversial question of the establishment and scope of work title protection for fictional characters. 

The rights holder of the “James Bond” films had argued that the name of the secretary ‘Moneypenny’ or “Miss Moneypenny,” who appears repeatedly in the James Bond series (with a brief interruption), is protected as a work title under Section 5 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). The lower courts had dismissed the action. The judges justified this on the grounds that the character “Miss Moneypenny” lacked the individuality that would enable independent work title protection. The Federal Court of Justice has now confirmed this assessment. At the same time it specified the requirements for the protectability of fictional characters. 

Miss Moneypenny lacks sufficient individualization

Work title protection is based on Trademark Law and protects titles as business names without requiring a formal application or registration process like registered trademarks. In this context, a title refers to the name or specific designation of printed works, films, audio and stage works as well as comparable works. 

Under certain conditions, names of characters from literary or cinematographic works can enjoy such work title protection. This was clarified by the Federal Court of Justice in its ruling. Whether protection applies depends on an assessment of the individual case, in which the following criteria are to be considered:

• First, the character itself must be a work in the form of an intangible work product.  

• This requires a certain degree of independence and distinct recognition of the fictional character in relation to the overall work. In other words: The character must be individualizable in the original work. It must be perceived by the public as independent and detached from the original work. This requires a combination of special visual design and distinctive character traits, abilities, and typical behaviours that individualize the character and its personality. On the other hand, evidence of the necessary independence that lies outside the underlying work (in our case, the film series) is irrelevant. 

• A further prerequisite for the existence of work title protection for a fictional character is a actual use of the name and the use of the name as a work title. 

Independence & a certain degree of recognition

In its ruling, the Federal Court of Justice explained in detail why “Miss Moneypenny” does not meet these requirements for the creation of work title protection. The judges outlined that the character lacks the required independence and independent recognition:

• According to the assessment of the Federal Court of Justice, there is a lack of consistent visual design for the character of “Miss Moneypenny.” The character has been portrayed by various actresses over the decades, meaning that there is no uniform and recognizable image of the character in terms of appearance. 

• There is a lack of defined, characteristic features that go beyond a stereotypical minor movie character. The characterization is diffuse and not suitable for making the character recognizable as an “independent work” isolated from the overall work. 

• Accordingly, the required degree of recognition is also not given. The name “Miss Moneypenny” is therefore associated by the relevant audience with the entire “James Bond” series rather than as an independent business name. 

On this basis, the Federal Court of Justice concluded that “Miss Moneypenny” does not constitute a work capable of being designated for the establishment of work title protection. However, this assessment does not mean that minor characters in a film can never be considered for work title protection. The judgement rather demonstrates that an assessment of the individual case is necessary. 

Important ruling for rights holders

The ruling stresses that rights holders cannot rely on the automatic creation of work title protection for fictional characters. Not every character is eligible for this kind of legal protection. Rights holders should therefore critically examine other forms of legal safeguarding. One possibility, for example, is the registration of trademarks. At the same time, the ruling points to a strategic gap: It could be advisable for rights holders to take measures at an early stage – ideally during the development or marketing of a character – to promote sufficient individualization (e.g., uniform visual design, independent merchandising exploitation, use detached from the original work to establish a certain degree of recognition).