The Case of DIGI: How Industry Practices Can Affect

the Assessment of a Trademark´s Distintiveness in the EU

Can a trademark as supposedly well-known as DIGI lack sufficient distinctiveness to be registered? The EUIPO believes so — but there’s a bit of a catch. 

In August 2024, Digi Romania filed an application with the EUIPO to register the figurative trademark “DIGI” for a broad list of goods and services related to, among other things, telecommunications, software, advertising, audiovisual content, and digital technology. 

In September 2025, however, the EUIPO partially rejected the application, finding that the term “DIGI” could be perceived by the target consumer as simply an abbreviation of “digital,” especially in sectors closely related to technology and telecommunications. 

What’s interesting about this decision beyond the outcome is the reasoning behind it. 

The EUIPO pointed out that consumers are particularly accustomed to encountering abbreviated, simplified, or directly derived terms from common technical concepts in the technology and digital sectors. It is precisely for this reason that expressions that might seem sufficiently original or evocative in other sectors may end up being perceived solely as descriptive. 

The EUIPO determined that this is exactly the case with “DIGI”; the consumer would not interpret it as an indicator of business origin, but rather as a direct and immediate reference to the digital nature of the goods and services. 

One might wonder if the registration, despite lacking inherent distinctiveness, could have been upheld on the basis of secondary meaning. Indeed, this could have been a possibility, though an argument to this effect would not have been supported by conclusive evidence (it’s not entirely clear from reading the EUIPO decision), and whether this argument was formally introduced to secure the contested application is also uncertain.  

Interestingly enough, as a final note, the EUIPO did not rule on the merits of the case in an appeal proceeding because the appeal and fees were filed past the statutory deadline.

Enlace a la decisión: click aquí

May 14, 2026