James Bond‘s Miss Moneypenny Loses Legal Battle Over Name Protection
Karlsruhe (dpa) – The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the character of “Miss Moneypenny” from the James Bond film series doesn’t possess enough distinctiveness to warrant legal protection of her name 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 case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the company holding usage rights to the Bond films – now owned by Amazon – against the German firm. The plaintiffs argued the use of the name infringed upon their intellectual property. However, the BGH upheld previous rulings by lower courts, dismissing the appeal.
Lacking a Defining Persona
Presiding Judge thomas Koch explained that while fictional characters can be eligible for title protection, “Moneypenny” hadn’t achieved the necessary level of independent 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.”
The debate during September’s hearing centered on the evolving portrayal of Moneypenny across the film series – different actresses, varying hairstyles – and whether this fluidity undermined a consistent image. Arguments were also made that Moneypenny represents simply reliable competence within a world of espionage and eccentricity. The fact that she doesn’t appear in every Bond film, and has been referred to by different names (“Miss Moneypenny,” “Moneypenny,” ”Eve Moneypenny”) further contributed to the court’s decision.
“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 decision wouldn’t impact the future of the Bond franchise, but highlighted a clear power dynamic. “It does show one thing very clearly: who is really in charge!”
Chowdhury pointed out that when ian Fleming created the character in 1953, and Lois Maxwell brought her to life on screen a decade later, the lasting cultural resonance of Moneypenny was likely unforeseen. He noted similar commercial use of the name occurred in the UK several years ago. “Such is the power of the 007 myth,” he said, “Moneypenny seems to have become the patron saint of secretaries.”
Work Title Protection & Other Protected Characters
The legal dispute revolved around “work title protection,” a legal principle safeguarding titles of creative works – books, films, TV shows, and music – as business names. Judge Koch cited the film title “Skyfall” as an example of a protected Bond title, preventing confusion and protecting its reputation.
While character names can also be protected, the BGH’s ruling demonstrates a high bar for qualification. Unlike Moneypenny,characters like Pippi Longstocking and Obelix have successfully secured work title protection due to their highly recognizable and distinct characteristics.
