Some trademarks sail through registration smoothly, but others walk a thornier path of objections and appeals. Such was the journey of the cosmetic brand “MONASTERY”, which faced an uphill battle at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) before ultimately securing a victory. The very name Monastery – a term rooted in religious tradition – made for an unusual cosmetics brand moniker, raising questions about distinctiveness, descriptiveness, and the sensitivities of using a sacred concept in commerce. This article examines the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s recent decision on “MONASTERY,” exploring what it teaches about trademark distinctiveness and how a revered term can (respectfully) find its place in the beauty industry.
Ellen and Reiko Inc., a U.S.-based cosmetics company, sought to extend the protection of its MONASTERY brand into Europe in early 2024. The mark was applied via an international registration designating the EU and covered a wide array of goods and services across Classes 3, 18, 21, 24, 35, and 44 – notably including cosmetics, fragrances, toiletries, bags, textiles, retail services, and spa/beauty services[1]. With such broad coverage, the MONASTERY mark aimed to serve as an indicator of origin for everything from skincare creams to spa services. Given the term’s usual association with religious communities, the application immediately stood out as unconventional in the context of beauty and lifestyle products.
The choice of the word “Monastery” for a cosmetics brand is certainly distinctive in the colloquial sense – it evokes images of monastic life, quietude, and tradition, rather than glamor or fashion. Indeed, one might expect the brand’s identity to emphasize purity, handcrafted quality, or ancient herbal knowledge (perhaps inspired by monastic traditions of making soaps or balms). However, in trademark law, a name must clear specific legal hurdles to be registered. The key question for EUIPO was whether MONASTERY was inherently distinctive for the goods in question, or whether it was descriptive of some characteristic or origin of those goods. This question set the stage for a clash between the applicant and the examiner over the mark’s registrability in the EU.
The EUIPO examiner initially issued a provisional refusal against most of the applied goods/services under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU TradeMark Regulation (EUTMR) – the provisions that bar non-distinctive or descriptive trademarks. In the examiner’s view, “MONASTERY” would not function as a distinctive brand for things like cosmetics, bags, or spa services, because consumers would perceive it as conveying information about those goods rather than indicating a unique commercial origin. Specifically, the examiner argued that consumers in the EU would understand the word “monastery” as indicating that the products or services are made by, or provided in, a monastery[2]. In other words, the term was deemed descriptive of the place of production or the ethos of the goods – suggesting monastic origin or inspiration – and thus devoid of distinctiveness for such products.
To support this position, the examiner collected evidence of monasteries actually offering products and services in the relevant categories. Screenshots were provided showing things like cosmetics, personal care items, bags, combs, and even towels that originate from real monasteries or from businesses operating in former monastery sites (for example, monasteries that have been partly converted into wellness hotels or spa retreats). This evidence was used to claim that “monastery” is a term commonly used in marketing for certain goods in the beauty and lifestyle sector – implying that European consumers would be accustomed to seeing monastery-branded or monastery-made products. If that were true, MONASTERY as a mark might indeed fall foul of Article 7(1)(c) for directly describing a characteristic or origin of the goods.
The applicant, however, strongly disagreed with this assessment. Ellen and Reiko Inc. contended that any connection between “Monastery” and the wide range of goods in question is far from obvious – in fact, it would require “multiple mental steps” for the average consumer to link cosmetics or retail services to the idea of a monastery. They argued that the term does not directly describe the products (a jar of face cream isn’t inherently related to a monastery), and thus the mark should be seen as an arbitrary or suggestive brand name, not a descriptive term. The applicant also pointed to prior registrations of similar concept marks in the industry and noted that MONASTERY was an established brand in the U.S. cosmetics market. This line of argument implied that if other spiritually-themed or location-themed marks had been accepted, and if the brand was recognized by consumers as a source indicator, the EUIPO should likewise give MONASTERY a chance. Furthermore, the applicant challenged the examiner’s evidence and reasoning – asserting that a few niche examples of monastic products do not prove that European consumers at large would view MONASTERY as a descriptive term for cosmetics or spa services.
Despite the applicant’s counterarguments, the examiner maintained the refusal. Notably, the examiner took the stance that EUIPO was “not under any obligation to provide concrete examples” of the term’s use for each and every product. In doing so, the examiner invoked the principle of “well-known facts” in trademark examination: if something is well-known to the public, the Office can rely on it without exhaustive proof. The examiner cited case law (such as the Nutriskin decision[3]) to argue that it was generally known (or at least ought to be known) that monasteries can and do produce items like cosmetics or toiletries to support themselves. In a pointed rationale, the examiner remarked that even though monks and nuns lead simple lives, nothing prevents them from using cosmetics or making and selling such products to supplement their income. In short, EUIPO reasoned that “monastery” could directly describe a line of goods that, while perhaps inspired by a religious way of life, are commercial products potentially coming from monastic sources. With the objections still standing, the applicant appealed the refusal to the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal in hope of salvation for the MONASTERY mark.
The crux of the dispute became whether the monastic connection to cosmetics and related goods was truly “well-known” or merely anecdotal. The examiner’s evidence did show that some monasteries in Europe produce or sell items like soaps, creams, or herbal lotions (often in monastery gift shops or online) as well as run hospitality services with spas. For instance, certain Benedictine abbeys market artisanal balms or skin creams made by monks, and former monasteries-turned-hotels advertise spa treatments in a monastic setting. While these examples are real, the legal question was whether such practices are commonly understood by the average consumer. The notion of monks crafting luxury face oils is intriguing, but is it a generalized fact in the mind of the EU public?
EUIPO examiners are allowed to rely on facts that are considered “well-known” – those likely known by anyone or readily accessible to the general public – without needing extensive proof. However, this standard must be applied carefully. In the MONASTERY case, the examiner essentially asserted as a well-known fact that monasteries commonly produce or endorse cosmetics and wellness goods. The Board of Appeal took a harder look at this claim. It noted that, although monastic communities have historically been known for making certain products (for example, Trappist beers, cheeses, honey, or religious craft items), the extension of this reputation to cosmetics and spa services was not self-evident to most consumers. Yes, some consumers may have encountered monastery-made soaps or creams, but such instances are relatively niche and not widely known among the relevant public in the EU.
Moreover, the Board found the examiner’s evidence insufficient to establish a direct and immediate association between the word “Monastery” and the applicant’s array of goods. In other words, just because a handful of monasteries sell honey-based skin cream or run a spa does not mean that the average shopper, upon seeing MONASTERY on a beauty product, would assume it comes from a monastery. The term Monastery in a brand name might evoke a sense of tradition or natural purity, but that is a suggestive connotation, not a literal description of origin in the eyes of most consumers. Importantly, the Board also observed that there was no solid evidence that “Monastery” is a common marketing term in the cosmetics or wellness industry. Unlike words such as “herbal” or “spa” which frequently appear on product labels, monastery is not routinely used to sell face creams or perfumes – at least not to an extent that would render it generic or descriptive.
The concept of well-known facts proved to be the examiner’s undoing. The case highlights that just because something sounds plausible (e.g. monks making cosmetics) doesn’t mean it is well known enough to forgo proof. EUIPO case law requires that truly well-known facts be those “likely to be known by any person, in particular consumers of the goods”. Here, the Board found that the examiner had stretched this concept beyond its limits – essentially relying on conjecture and a few examples rather than an objectively verifiable common knowledge. Put simply, the MONASTERY mark’s descriptiveness needed to be proved, not presumed.
On 20 August 2025, the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal delivered what one might call trademark salvation for MONASTERY. The Board annulled the refusal, disagreeing with the examiner and concluding that MONASTERY is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctiveness for the specified goods and services. This decision hinged on a more nuanced understanding of how consumers perceive the term.
First, the Board acknowledged the reality: some monasteries do produce or offer items like those covered by the application (e.g. cosmetics, toiletries, wellness services). However, it emphasized that such practices are limited in scope and not common knowledge across the EU market. The average European consumer is not in the habit of obtaining everyday cosmetics from a monastic source, nor would they assume a product branded “Monastery” must originate in cloistered walls. Thus, “MONASTERY” is not descriptive in the sense of Article 7(1)(c) – there is no immediate, obvious link between the word and the goods that would inform the consumer about a characteristic of those goods.
Second, the Board conducted its own assessment of the purported “well-known” facts. It agreed that monasteries have well-known associations with certain products (like brewing beer or making cheese), but it refused to extend that common knowledge to cosmetics and spa services without solid proof. The examiner’s leap of faith – from monks brewing ale to monks formulating face creams – was not backed by sufficient evidence or consumer understanding. Additionally, the Board noted there was no convincing corroboration that monastery is a term prevalent in marketing for beauty or personal care products. In essence, the Board drew a line between inspiration and description: while a monastery might inspire branding (connoting tranquility or natural origin), it does not literally describe the goods in question in the mind of the public.
Having found the mark neither descriptive nor generic, the Board concluded that MONASTERY is capable of functioning as a trademark – it can distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from those of others. The name may be unusual, even evocative, but that is precisely what makes it distinctive rather than descriptive. As a result, the Board overturned the initial refusal, clearing the way for MONASTERY to proceed to registration in the EU. The brand had traversed the thorny path and emerged with a favorable outcome.
From a legal perspective, the MONASTERY decision reinforces a fundamental principle of trade mark law: context is everything. A term that might be descriptive in one context can be wholly distinctive in another. Here, “Monastery” carries strong religious and cultural connotations, but the EUIPO recognized that those connotations do not equate to a descriptive meaning for cosmetics or spa services in the eyes of the average consumer. The case serves as a reminder that examiners must ground their objections in actual consumer perception and evidence – especially when claiming something is “commonly known.” Over-reliance on assumed knowledge or niche examples can lead to overbroad refusals, which the Boards (and courts) are keen to correct.
Equally important is the way brands choose and use such culturally or spiritually loaded terms. MONASTERY as a brand name undoubtedly aims to evoke an image of purity, sanctuary, and age-old tradition – qualities that could appeal to consumers seeking natural or holistic beauty remedies. When adopting a term with religious significance, however, there is a need for respect and sensitivity. In this case, the usage of “Monastery” is not in any way derogatory or irreverent; rather, it can be seen as paying homage to the idea of wholesome, honest production (perhaps akin to how Trappist is used for beers made by monks). It’s worth noting that the EUIPO did not raise any objection on morality or public order grounds – indicating that the term wasn’t considered offensive or improper in a commercial context. Nonetheless, companies leveraging such themes should remain mindful of public perception. A name like MONASTERY carries a certain gravitas, and maintaining authenticity and respect in marketing will be key to its brand acceptance, especially for those who hold Christian Catholic or Orthodox values dear.
In the end, the MONASTERY saga highlights the balance between creative branding and legal distinctiveness. The EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision vindicated the applicant’s choice of a distinctive (if unconventional) mark, while also subtly reminding examiners that even “well-known facts” require careful validation. The term Monastery now joins the roster of protected trade marks, illustrating that even reverent or sacred concepts can find a place in the modern marketplace – provided they meet the tests of the law and are handled with the respect they deserve.
All in all, the MONASTERY decision is both an academic case study in trademark distinctiveness and a practical lesson for brand owners. A creative name, even one stemming from sacred traditions, can obtain protection in the EU if it isn’t an obvious description of the goods and if the applicant is prepared to demonstrate its distinctiveness. As this case shows, a thoughtful blend of legal reasoning and cultural respect can lead a brand out of the wilderness of refusal onto the path of registration – a true blessing for any trademark on a mission.
[1] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#key/trademark/APL_20250820_R0529_2025-4_W01795126
[2] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#key/trademark/RFS_20250127_W01795126_W01795126
[3] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#basic/*///name/nutriskin