Can you call yourself "Miss Moneypenny"? - BGH examines whether James Bond's secretary is taboo under trademark law

Image: Capturing Images / shutterstock.com

Agent or common property? Dispute over a famous name

When the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe spends an hour dealing with a character from the James Bond films, it's not about espionage or shootouts - it's about business. More precisely: the question of whether the name "Miss Moneypenny" is so well-known and special that no one can simply use it.

A company offers services such as personal assistance and secretarial services under the name "Moneypenny" - and the rights holder of the Bond films (now Amazon) doesn't like this at all. The accusation: the good reputation of the famous secretary is being exploited. But is "Moneypenny" really worth protecting?

How much James Bond is in Moneypenny?

"Miss Moneypenny" - that's the lady who usually sits at the desk in the Bond films, hands over paper, sometimes talks flirtatiously to 007 and otherwise never picks up a weapon herself. She was in almost all the films, but was played by different actresses. Sometimes brunette, sometimes blonde, sometimes more secretary, sometimes almost agent.

For the plaintiff, that doesn't matter. Lawyer Christian Rohnke argues: "She radiates normality" and is an integral part of the Bond universe - just as well-known as Q or M. The character is recognizable, even if she never played the main role. This is enough to place her under so-called "work title protection" - i.e. protection that is intended to protect the names of well-known media figures from being copied.

Is "Miss Moneypenny" a case for trademark protection?

The problem: so far, the courts have seen things differently. Both the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg found that the name was not individual or distinctive enough: No, the name was not individual or independent enough to enjoy protection. There is no typical look, no story of its own and certainly no real separation from the main James Bond work. Unlike "Pippi Longstocking", for example, which has its own world, "Moneypenny" is more of an accessory - nice, but not brand-defining.

And then there is the question of the image of women. The defendant counters: Moneypenny has never stood out for her special work performance - she is just there, brings the briefcase and lets herself be hit on. Is this really a role model for modern assistant services? Or just a nostalgic flashback to a rather outdated role cliché?

The BGH has the last word - soon

One thing is clear: the Federal Court of Justice must now decide whether the name "Moneypenny" is more than just a minor character. Is it enough to appear regularly in films to defend oneself against companies that use the name for completely different purposes? Or has the term long since entered common parlance - as a synonym for everyday office life with style?

No ruling has yet been made - but the issue could be a landmark one. Because if every reasonably well-known film character is suddenly protected as a trademark, things will quickly become tight for creative company names.

This may attract imitators

The whole thing has a slightly absurd aftertaste. When a character like "Miss Moneypenny" is suddenly declared a protected trademark , even though she has only been acting passively in the background for decades, it opens the door to claims for protection from any minor character with a speaking role. "Miss Moneypenny" is certainly charming - but she is not a trademark in her own right. If you turn a secretary with a typewriter into a super brand, then trademark protection becomes a laughing stock.