No copyright title protection for 'Miss Moneypenny' – landmark Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling on the protection of film characters

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has decided that the name of the well-known James Bond film character 'Miss Moneypenny' does not enjoy copyright title protection. The ruling clarifies fundamental questions on the protectability of fictional characters.

Background to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision

The First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which is also responsible for trademark law, rendered a decision of practical importance in its judgment of 4 December 2025 (Az. I ZR 219/24). The focus was on the question of whether the name of the film character 'Miss Moneypenny' from the James Bond series is protected as a work title and can thus be defended against use by third parties. The BGH answered this in the negative and thereby confirmed the decisions of the courts below (Regional Court (LG) Hamburg, judgment of 15 June 2023 – 327 O 230/21, Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamburg, judgment of 24 October 2024 – 5 U 83/23). The press release of the BGH is available here.

The dispute stemmed from the well-known film series about secret agent James Bond, which since 1962 has comprised 25 films to date. The character 'Miss Moneypenny' traditionally appears in it as the secretary of the intelligence chief 'M'. After a relaunch of the film series in 2006, the character was initially absent but returned in the film 'Skyfall' (2012) as the younger 'Eve Moneypenny'.

Dispute between rights holder and service provider

The plaintiff, named on the copies of the films as holder of copyright exploitation rights, believed her rights were infringed by the use of the designations 'MONEYPENNY' and 'MY MONEYPENNY'. These designations were used by the first defendant to advertise secretarial and assistance services within a franchise system. The second defendant was, inter alia, holder of several trademarks and of domains containing the term 'moneypenny'.

The plaintiff took the view that the film character 'Miss Moneypenny' constituted an independently protectable work. The name of the character was therefore protected as a work title. On this basis, she asserted comprehensive claims, including injunction, recall, destruction, disclosure, damages, and the deletion of trademarks and domains.

The plaintiff contended that 'Miss Moneypenny' was an independently protectable work, the name of which was protected as a work title. On this basis, she sought comprehensive claims for injunction, disclosure and damages, as well as the deletion of trademarks and domains.

Previous course of proceedings

The Regional Court (LG) had already dismissed the action. The appeal was also unsuccessful. However, the appellate court allowed revision, limited to the claims asserted on the basis of work title protection. Before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the plaintiff continued to pursue her motions – but again without success.

Legal standards for work title protection

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) first clarified that the name of a fictional character from a film work can in principle enjoy work title protection. A prerequisite, however, is that the character itself constitutes a designatable work in the sense of trademark law. What is required is an intangible work product that, according to the understanding of trade and commerce, is perceived as independent and can serve as the subject matter of legal and commercial transactions.

For fictional characters, this means that they must clearly distinguish themselves from the base work. What is decisive is sufficient individualization, which leads the public to perceive the character as independent and not merely as part of the overall work. Indicators of this may include, for example, distinctive visual design, pronounced character traits, typical behaviours, or a consistent, unmistakeable personality.

Why 'Miss Moneypenny' does not enjoy work title protection

According to the findings of the appellate court, to which the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) agreed, the character 'Miss Moneypenny' lacks this required independence. Neither is there a clearly defined visual design nor do the various portrayals of the character possess constant, particularly pronounced character traits that would give it a distinctive personality.

Although 'Miss Moneypenny' is known to a broad public, this familiarity is substantially based on its integration into the James Bond universe. According to the court's view, there is no independent perception separate from the film series. Furthermore, the BGH emphasized that evidence of independence may be derived exclusively from the base work itself. Attributions or developments outside the films are legally irrelevant.

Significance of the ruling for trademark and designation law

The ruling demonstrates the high requirements for work title protection of names of fictional characters. Even iconic and internationally renowned film characters do not automatically meet these requirements. For enterprises that use terms from popular culture or entertainment, the decision creates greater legal certainty without sweepingly relativizing existing protective rights.

At the same time, the ruling shows that in addition to work title protection, trademark law or unfair competition law aspects must always be examined. The lack of title protectability does not automatically mean that use is risk-free in every case.

Particularly in this complex area of tension, specialized legal support is crucial. Our law firm AVANTCORE has comprehensive expertise in trademark and designation law and advises enterprises on the development, securing and enforcement of their designation strategies.

Conclusion and practical tips

The BGH ruling on 'Miss Moneypenny' demonstrates that work title protection for names of fictional characters is subject to strict requirements. What is decisive is not fame, but independent individualization of the character within the work.

Enterprises should have it carefully examined before using well-known names as to what protective rights actually exist. Rights holders, for their part, should realistically assess whether their characters meet the requirements for independent work title protection. Early trademark protection and strategic examination of protective rights help minimize legal risks and optimize economic scope for action.