EU Court Blocks Veikkaus Trademark Over Generic Slogan
The General Court of the European Union dismissed Veikkaus Oy’s appeal in full on Wednesday. The ruling confirms EUIPO’s refusal to register the trademark “FOR BETTER GAMING – VEIKKAUS” for services tied to betting, casino, lottery, online games and gambling software. The court found the sign lacks inherent distinctiveness because Finnish consumers understand “Veikkaus” in its literal sense of “bet” or “prediction game.”
Veikkaus filed the trademark application in August 2024. It covered business, entertainment and technology services under Nice Classification classes 35, 41 and 42. EUIPO accepted only part of the request: it approved registration for some business consultancy, electronic publication, and scientific and technology services, but it refused registration for every service tied to gambling.
According to Veikkaus, long-term use and strong recognition in Finland meant “Veikkaus” identified the company as the commercial origin of its services, even though the word originally translates as “bet” or “prediction.” The court disagreed. Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 separates two distinct tests: inherent distinctiveness and distinctiveness acquired through use. Reputation built by one element of a mark cannot decide the inherent-distinctiveness stage, the judges said.
For gambling-related services, the judges said the slogan works as a promotional quality claim rather than a source identifier. They found no originality, ambiguity, surprise or wordplay that would make it memorable as a trademark. By contrast, the hyphen between “FOR BETTER GAMING” and “VEIKKAUS” does not change this impression, according to the court. The two elements still form one clear, immediately understandable phrase.
The company also pointed to the earlier VEIKKAUS mark, already registered because it had acquired distinctiveness through use, and argued that the same recognition should support the new combined sign. The court rejected this claim as well. To accept it, the ruling states, would erase the legal separation between inherent and acquired distinctiveness. Meanwhile, the judges noted that earlier Finnish registrations and similar trademarks do not bind EUIPO, since the EU trademark system operates independently from national systems.
EUIPO’s Board of Appeal had already sent the file back to the examiner. A separate review must assess Veikkaus’s secondary request: whether the sign has acquired distinctiveness through use under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. That question was not part of this case. A separate procedure will address it next.
💡TGJ Take
This ruling is a reminder that brand recognition does not automatically carry over to new marketing language. Veikkaus’s reputation in Finland meant nothing at the inherent-distinctiveness stage: the court treated the slogan as a generic sales pitch, not a protectable brand asset. Operators and suppliers that build brand strategies around descriptive taglines should expect the same outcome. A well-known company name attached to a promotional phrase does not make the phrase registrable. Legal teams should pursue acquired-distinctiveness evidence early and separately, rather than assume reputation alone will carry a broader slogan through EUIPO review.
