James Bond‘s โฃMiss Moneypenny Loses Legal Battleโค Over Name Protection
Karlsruhe (dpa) – The Federal Court of Justiceโค (BGH) has ruled โthat the character of “Miss Moneypenny” from the James Bond film series doesn’t possess enough distinctiveness to warrant legal protection of her nameโ for commercial use. The decision effectively allows a Northern German service provider to continue operating under the names “Moneypenny” and “My Moneypenny” offering personal assistant services.
The โขcase stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the company holdingโฃ usage โขrights to theโ Bond films – now owned by Amazon – against the German firm. Theโ plaintiffs argued the use of the name infringed upon theirโฃ intellectual property. โคHowever, the BGH upheld previousโ rulings by lower courts, dismissing the appeal.
Lacking a โDefining Persona
Presiding Judge thomas โKoch explained that while fictional characters can be eligible for titleโ protection,โค “Moneypenny” hadn’t achieved โthe necessary level of โindependent recognition.The court concluded that the character “lacks both a certain visual design and special character traits that would give the fictional character of ‘Miss Moneypenny’ in the ‘James Bond’ films a sufficiently individualized character with an unmistakable personality.”โข
The debate during September’s hearing centered on the evolving portrayal of Moneypenny across the โคfilm series – โคdifferent actresses, varying hairstyles – and whetherโข this fluidity underminedโ a โconsistent image. โฃArguments were also made that Moneypenny represents simply reliable competence within a world ofโ espionage and eccentricity. The fact that she doesn’t appear โin every Bond film, and has been referred โขto by different names (“Miss Moneypenny,” “Moneypenny,” โ”Eve Moneypenny”) further contributed to the court’s โคdecision.
“Patron Saint of Secretaries”
British Bond historian and author Ajay Chowdhury described the ruling as a “David versus Goliath” victory for the German company. He noted the โdecisionโข wouldn’t impact the future of the Bond franchise, but highlighted a clear power dynamic. “It โฃdoes show one thing very clearly: whoโ is really in charge!”
Chowdhury pointed out that when ian Fleming created the character in 1953, โand Lois Maxwell brought her to life on screen a decade later, theโข lasting cultural resonance of Moneypenny was likely unforeseen. He noted similar commercial use โขof the name occurred in the UK โคseveral years ago. “Suchโข is theโค powerโฃ of the 007 myth,” he said, “Moneypenny seems to have becomeโ the patronโ saint of secretaries.”
Work โTitleโข Protectionโฃ & Otherโฃ Protectedโ Characters
The legal dispute revolved aroundโฃ “work title protection,” a legal principle safeguarding titles of creative works – books, films, TV shows, and music – as business โnames. Judge Koch cited the film โขtitle “Skyfall” as an example โคof a protected Bond title, preventing confusion and protecting its reputation.
While character names can โขalso be protected, the BGH’s ruling demonstrates a high bar for qualification. Unlike Moneypenny,characters like โฃPippi Longstocking and Obelix have successfully secured work title protection due to their highly recognizable and distinct characteristics.
