Contact us

Questions about your strategic brand development? 
Get expert advice from Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Brand Strategist at Remarkable Europe.

Let’s talk about your challenge

Neem contact op

Vragen over jouw strategische merkontwikkeling? 
Krijg advies van Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Merkstrateeg bij Remarkable Europe.

Laten we jouw uitdaging bespreken

Contact

Schrijf je in voor onze maandelijkse nieuwsbrief!

Thank you!

Bedankt!

Looking for more strategic, creative, and legal brand insights?

Wil je meer strategische, creatieve en juridische merkinzichten ontvangen?

Footer Bottom Menu

Footer Bottom Menu NL

Footer Menu EN

Footer Menu NL

Header Menu EN

Header Menu NL

Cities, municipalities, and other public institutions often use a recognisable emblem or logo. Think of a lion in a coat of arms or a typical cityscape. But what happens when a company wants to use a similar image as a trademark? And how can governments protect themselves against this?

According to trademark law, a trademark is intended to indicate the commercial origin of a product or service. For this reason, certain symbols cannot be registered as trademarks. National flags, coats of arms, or signs of public interest are, for example, excluded from trademark protection under the Paris Convention. That makes sense: it would be odd if a company could claim exclusive rights to, say, the Swedish coat of arms.
Whether a country can enjoy additional trademark protection is currently being tested with Sweden’s recent application for the trademark “Sweden.” While this is still pending approval, it’s important for other institutions to protect their name or logo through a trademark registration, since they don’t automatically fall under such exemptions. Public institutions can certainly benefit from a strong brand strategy.

What is and isn’t allowed?

In 2022, Luxembourg-based company BMB Ressources, known commercially as Promanté—a producer of industrial adhesives and maintenance products—tried to register a new figurative trademark. Their design closely resembled the lion that the city of Luxembourg has used as its symbol since 1998 — and had registered as a trademark. The city filed an opposition with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP).
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-4788 size-full" src="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_VilledeLuxembourg.png" alt="Remarkable-Europe_VilledeLuxembourg.png" width="647" height="379" srcset="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_VilledeLuxembourg.png 647w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_VilledeLuxembourg-300x176.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 647px) 100vw, 647px" />
&nbsp;
According to the BOIP, both lions were visually very similar. But in trademark disputes, visual resemblance isn’t the only factor. The goods or services for which the trademark is registered also matter. These must either overlap, be similar, or be complementary. In this case, the trademarks overlapped in only two classes, but the city of Luxembourg attempted to show that Promanté’s other classes were closely related to theirs.
Luxembourg also claimed that their trademark was well-known and therefore deserved broader protection — but the evidence provided was insufficient. Understandably so, given that the threshold for proving notoriety is quite high.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-4789 size-large" src="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_Promante-1024x387.jpg" alt="Remarkable-Europe_Promante.jpg" width="1024" height="387" srcset="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_Promante-1024x387.jpg 1024w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_Promante-300x113.jpg 300w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_Promante-768x290.jpg 768w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/06/Remarkable-Europe_Promante.jpg 1386w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
Ultimately, the BOIP partially sided with Luxembourg: because their trademark was protected for ‘materials for artists’, Promanté could not register their trademark for paints and related goods. Even though not in the same class, these were seen as highly similar. For the other goods, Promanté’s trademark remained valid. Whether this will stand is uncertain, as an appeal has already been filed against the decision.
Read more about Brand Twins and how they can coexist <a href="https://remarkable.eu/en/insights/brand-twins-under-trademark-law/">in this blog</a>. This includes a reasoning on how Lotus (cookies), Lotus (cars), and Lotus (toilet paper) can live in harmony.

The case of Luxembourg vs. Promanté

Strikingly, Promanté had already been using the lion logo in practice for fifteen years and had even registered it in 2009 in combination with their brand name. That adds an extra layer of nuance. Because anyone who passively observes for years without objecting may be seen as having implicitly accepted the use. A swift response is crucial.
This case illustrates how important it is for governments to not only register their emblems, logos, and names as trademarks but also to actively monitor and enforce them. That’s the only way to prevent confusion, reputational damage, or unwanted associations.
At Remarkable, we support governments and public institutions every day in smart brand management. Questions about how best to protect your emblem or logo? We’re happy to help you think it through.

A city logo as a trademark?