Sea Shepherd before the EUIPO: the Opposition Takes on Water

A well-known organisation dedicated to the defence of the marine environment, Sea Shepherd is an international movement recognised for its awareness-raising and intervention activities aimed at protecting biodiversity, notably in the fight against illegal fishing and threats to marine species. Active in many countries, the organisation relies on national structures, such as the French association Sea Shepherd France, incorporated under the French 1901 Act, which carries out in France mobilisation campaigns, communications, fundraising initiatives, and support for legal or institutional actions in the ecological field.

It is against this particular background, combining activist identity with issues surrounding control over the “Sea Shepherd” name, that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued a noteworthy decision on 30 January 2026.

This decision strongly recalls a key requirement: the name of an association, even if longstanding and well-known, does not necessarily constitute a “sign used in the course of trade” within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, where it does not serve to identify an economic activity.

‍

1. Background: an opposition based on the name “Sea Shepherd France”

The opposition was filed on 3 May 2024 by the French association Sea Shepherd France, against the international registration designating the European Union No. 1 770 277, covering the word mark:

SEA SHEPHERD

The contested mark covered an extremely broad range of goods and services, notably in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, as well as service classes such as 35, 41, 42, 45, among others.

To oppose this registration, the opponent relied not on an earlier registered trademark, but on its associative name allegedly used in France in the course of trade, on the basis of:

• Article 8(4) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), relating to non-registered signs.

The opposition was therefore based on the sign:

SEA SHEPHERD FRANCE

‍

2. The legal framework: Article 8(4) EUTMR and the notion of “use in the course of trade”

Article 8(4) EUTMR allows an opposition to be filed on the basis of:

• a non-registered trademark, or
• another sign used in the course of trade,

provided in particular that the sign:

1. was used prior to the contested mark,
2. is of more than merely local significance,
3. grants its holder the right to prohibit the use of a later trademark.

However, the Opposition Division recalled a fundamental point derived from the case law of the Court of Justice:

use in the course of trade presupposes a commercial activity pursued for economic advantage, and not a purely private or institutional activity.

The decision refers notably to:

• CJEU, Arsenal, C-206/01
• CJEU, Opel, C-48/05
• CJEU, Céline, C-17/06

‍

3. Extensive evidence… yet insufficient

Sea Shepherd France submitted a particularly substantial body of evidence, including:

• statutes and Official Journal publications,
• extracts from websites,
• activity reports,
• legal actions,
• media campaigns,
• invoices relating to merchandising through a boutique,
• social media presence,
• fundraising and lobbying operations, etc.

Despite this extensive documentation, the Division held that the evidence primarily demonstrated militant, educational and charitable activities, consistent with the association’s statutory purpose, rather than an economic activity.

In particular, the Division emphasised that:

• the activities were not aimed at acquiring commercial outlets,
• they did not pursue an economic advantage,
• they did not involve significant commercial transactions capable of identifying a commercial origin.

‍

4. The association name: an earlier right… but not necessarily a “commercial sign”

The decision then examined the French law invoked, notably:

• Article L.711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which protects certain earlier rights (company names, association names, etc.) against the registration of confusingly similar trademarks.

The EUIPO acknowledged that, in principle, an association name may be protected.

However, it drew a crucial distinction:

to fall within Article 8(4) EUTMR, the sign must fulfil a distinctive function as regards commercial origin.

According to the Division:

• an association that does not carry out commercial activity does not use its name to identify an undertaking,
• its name therefore does not qualify as a sign used in the course of trade.

Thus:

the name “SEA SHEPHERD FRANCE” was not shown to be a distinctive sign identifying an economic activity.

‍

5. Full rejection of the opposition and costs awarded

As a result, the Opposition Division decided:

• to reject the opposition in its entirety,
• and ordered the opponent to bear the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

‍

Conclusion: a structuring decision for associations and NGOs

This decision highlights an important limitation in EU trademark opposition proceedings:

• the mere use of an association name, even longstanding, is not always sufficient to successfully oppose a trademark application at EU level.

To benefit from Article 8(4) EUTMR, it is essential to demonstrate that the earlier sign:

• identifies an economic activity,
• functions as a commercial sign,
• is genuinely used in the course of trade.

This case therefore provides a useful reminder for NGOs, associations and foundations engaged in awareness-raising activities, but also seeking to protect their name against trademark filings within the European Union.