By a decision dated 5 January 20261, the European Union Intellectual Property Office rejected the application for registration of the figurative European Union trademark “QUITE LUXURY”, filed in particular for goods in Classes 18 and 25.
This decision forms part of a now well-established line of EUIPO case law characterised by heightened scrutiny of signs liable to be perceived as descriptive or promotional, especially where they relate to stylistic trends widely disseminated within a given economic sector.
More specifically, the decision highlights the increasing difficulty of securing trademark protection for expressions directly associated with contemporary luxury concepts, where such expressions merely reflect shared aesthetic codes or commonly used marketing positioning in the relevant market.
To consult the decision discussed below, please click on the link provided hereafter.
The company Fashion Holding Düsseldorf GmbH filed an application for a European Union trademark consisting of a figurative sign made up of the terms “QUITE” and “LUXURY”, displayed in a superimposed layout with a particular typographical treatment. The application covered, inter alia, leather goods, luggage, saddlery, as well as clothing, footwear and headgear in Classes 18 and 25.
By a communication dated 8 August 2025, the EUIPO raised an objection to registration based on Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (EUTMR). The Office considered that the sign lacked distinctive character and merely described characteristics or the market positioning of the goods concerned.
Despite the observations submitted by the applicant in response to that objection, the EUIPO upheld its position and definitively refused registration by decision of 5 January 2026.
The EUIPO based its reasoning primarily on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, which excludes from registration signs consisting exclusively of indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods, as well as on Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR relating to the absence of distinctive character.
According to the Office, the relevant public, comprising both the general English-speaking public and a more discerning, style- and quality-conscious segment of consumers, would immediately perceive the sign “QUITE LUXURY” as a direct reference to the well-established concept of quiet luxury. This expression is widely used in the fashion and luxury sectors to describe a style based on discretion, minimalism and high-quality materials, as opposed to conspicuous or logo-driven luxury.
The EUIPO considered that the substitution of “QUITE” for “QUIET” would be understood as a simple orthographic or phonetic variation, common in the English language, rather than as an arbitrary or distinctive element. This assessment was supported by numerous references drawn from specialist press and fashion-related websites, relied upon by the Office to demonstrate the customary and descriptive nature of the expression “quiet luxury”.
The applicant argued, by contrast, that the slight spelling variation and the graphic stylisation of the sign were sufficient to confer distinctive character. It further submitted that the EUIPO could not rely on general internet sources or subjective assessments, and that a consumer survey would have been necessary to establish the actual perception of the relevant public.
The EUIPO dismissed all of the applicant’s arguments. It recalled that the assessment of a sign’s distinctive character must be carried out by reference to the immediate perception of the relevant public, without any requirement to conduct opinion polls or demographic studies. Where the meaning of a sign is immediately apparent, the Office is not required to provide extensive empirical evidence of consumer perception.
As regards the figurative and typographical elements, the EUIPO held that these remained too banal and ancillary to divert attention from the descriptive message conveyed by the verbal elements of the sign. The superimposition of the words, the choice of typeface and the slight truncation of certain letters were not sufficient to create a memorable or original overall impression capable of enabling consumers to identify the commercial origin of the goods.
The Office also placed particular emphasis on the sector-specific context. In the fashion, luxury and accessories industries, terms such as “luxury” and “quiet luxury” are commonly used for promotional purposes to evoke a high-end, discreet and quality-focused positioning. In that context, the sign applied for was incapable of fulfilling the essential function of a trademark, namely to guarantee the identity of origin of the goods concerned.
Accordingly, the EUIPO concluded that the sign “QUITE LUXURY”, taken as a whole, was descriptive and devoid of distinctive character for all the goods claimed, and confirmed the refusal of registration pursuant to Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) EUTMR.
This decision is fully consistent with a broader and increasingly strict approach adopted by the EUIPO and the European courts towards trademarks composed of terms evocative of qualities, styles or marketing positioning, particularly in the luxury sector. It serves as a clear reminder that economic operators cannot expect to monopolise, through trademark law, expressions that have entered common commercial or promotional language to describe aesthetic trends or market concepts.
The decision also illustrates the limits of relying on graphic stylisation as a means of overcoming an inherent lack of distinctiveness, where the verbal message of the sign remains immediately understandable and descriptive for the relevant public.
1 EUIPO Decision of 5 January 2026, refusal of registration of European Union trademark No. 019209642 “QUITE LUXURY”
