BPatG 26. Senat (Brands)
Date of Decision                                April 23, 2026
Case Number                                     26 W (pat) 59/23

In a decision dated April 23, 2026, the Federal Patent Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the trademark application for “Home of Beauty.” The decision is of particular interest to trademark practice because it addresses the question of when commercially appealing English-language terms can still serve as trademarks and when they are merely understood as descriptive indications by the public. 

Background 

The applicant had filed an application for the word mark “Home of Beauty” for a wide range of goods and services in the fields of cosmetics, personal care, pet care as well as training and continuing education services in the beauty sector. However, the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) had rejected the application on the grounds that the sign lacked the required distinctiveness. In the Office’s view, the word order is understood merely as “house of beauty” or “center for beauty” and thus describes the field of activity of the goods and services offered. The applicant filed an appeal against this decision. She argued that the designation is not directly descriptive and requires an intermediate mental step to recognize its promotional meaning.

The Court’s Decision

The 26th Chamber of the Federal Patent Court did not accept this argument. In the court’s view, the phrase “Home of Beauty” consists exclusively of simple English terms that are readily understood by the German public as “house of beauty.” The term “Beauty” has long been part of general language usage, while the phrase “Home of” is also frequently used to describe a place of particular expertise or specialization.

The court noted that similar phrases are already widely used in the beauty sector by beauty parlors, hair salons and similar businesses. Consumers, therefore, would not perceive the designation as a reference to a specific company, but merely as a description of a place or offer related to the topic of beauty.

It is particularly noteworthy that the court did not limit the descriptive character to traditional cosmetic products. It also saw a close factual connection to the term “Beauty” in the case of cleaning products, essential oils and pet care items. Even for products not directly intended for beauty care, the term could be understood as an advertising message by the public, for example in the sense of a beautiful home or a well-groomed appearance of pets.

The decision once again highlights the strict requirements for the distinctiveness of trademarks in the lifestyle, cosmetics, and service sectors. Many companies use English terms such as “Home of”, “World of”, “House of” or similar phrases to convey expertise, diversity or exclusivity. However, the Federal Patent Court makes it clear that such phrases can be problematic under trademark law if the public perceives them merely as an advertising description of an offer.

For trademark applicants, the decision demonstrates that terms that are effective for advertising and easy to understand are often insufficient to obtain trademark protection. Anyone seeking to establish a trademark that is eligible for long-term protection should ensure that the chosen designation goes beyond a mere factual or promotional statement and can actually be perceived as an indication of origin by the public. With the rejection of the appeal, the trademark “Home of Beauty” therefore remains excluded from registration. The court thus confirms the established line of case law, according to which generally understandable and promotionally descriptive terms should not be monopolized, but must be open to free use by all market participants.