The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the name of the well-known James Bond film character “Miss Moneypenny” does not enjoy work title protection(judgement of 4 December 2025 – I ZR 219/24). This means that third parties may use the name “Moneypenny” for their own services without infringing rights under the work title protection.
Background to the case
In the specific case, the plaintiff, as the rights holder of the James Bond films, had asserted claims because a company used the name “MONEYPENNY” to advertise secretarial services. The plaintiff saw this as an infringement of the so-called work title protection of the film character’s name and demanded, among other things, injunctive relief and damages.
What is work title protection?
Work title protection protects the names or special designations of works, such as books, films or pieces of music, in accordance with the Trade Mark Act. It is not the content of the work itself that is protected, but its name – i.e. the title. In special cases, the name of a fictional character may also be eligible for protection, but only if it has an independent reputation and individuality beyond the work as a whole.
The reasoning of the BGH
The BGH has clarified that the name of a film character can only be considered for work title protection if the character is perceived independently, detached from the films and has an unmistakable characteristic. In the opinion of the court, “Miss Moneypenny” lacks the necessary independence and individuality. The character is not associated with an independent personality, but remains closely tied to the Bond universe and is not distinctive enough.
Conclusion
The name “Miss Moneypenny” thus remains freely usable for other companies as long as no other property rights (such as trade mark rights) conflict with it. The decision shows once again that work title protection places high demands on the independence and recognisability of a character. Moreover, work title protection – unlike copyright, which is also conceivable for film characters (such as “Pippi Longstocking“) if a character is sufficiently individualised – only ever protects the title in relation to the underlying work. The scope of protection is therefore narrow and does not apply separately to the name of the character. It therefore seems questionable in principle whether protection of the title of a work could have prevented the use of the name “Moneypenny” for secretarial services at all.
Copyright law also only grants protection for a character if its character originates from the creative imagination of the author, is sufficiently individualised and has a characteristic, unmistakable personality even outside of the specific story. In view of the lack of individuality and distinctiveness established by the BGH, the character “Miss Moneypenny” would probably not have fulfilled the strict requirements of copyright law.