The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s attempts to protect its party logo and the acronym “AfD” before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) have failed. According to reporting from ‘Bild’, the EU Trademark Office’s first appeal chamber in Alicante rejected the AfD’s complaints in two proceedings (R 2229/2025-1 and R 2230/2025-1) last Thursday. This ruling confirmed prior decisions made by the EUIPO revocation department in October 2025. Those decisions determined that the trademarks were forfeited because, in the authority’s view, the AfD had not proven sufficient “genuine use” as a trademark. However, the party’s name rights were not affected by these decisions; the dispute concerns the commercial use of the signs as trademarks.
The background stems from a petition filed by a Berlin law firm in September 2023, which sought to have three specific AfD trademarks revoked by the EUIPO due to a lack of genuine use. The AfD had registered these trademarks for numerous goods and services, including items like T-shirts, pens, cups, stickers, and lighters.
During the proceedings, the AfD argued, among other points, that it was commercially selling its fan merchandise. The appeal chamber remained unconvinced by this explanation. The EUIPO concluded that many of the goods bearing the AfD logo were primarily used as promotional items and were not understood to serve as an indication of the products’ manufacturers.
The AfD has the option to appeal these rulings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The party has kept its intentions regarding this next step undisclosed. The AfD informed ‘Bild’ that its logo, the name “Alternative für Deutschland,” and the abbreviation “AfD” remain comprehensively protected through various German and Union trademarks and through name rights. The party declined to offer further information regarding other trademark law questions.
It is notable that the EUIPO had forfeited three AfD trademarks in October 2025. The party lodged appeals against two of those decisions but did not appeal the forfeiture of the third trademark. That specific decision has therefore entered into legal force.
