A Brazilian company markets granolas, cereals, and bars under the name AUSTRALIA:
The choice is striking: can a company commercially appropriate the name of a country with which its products do not necessarily share an origin?
The short answer is, it depends. Registering a country name is not prohibited. per se, The problem arises when the consumer may interpret that geographical name as information about the products or services and not as an indicator of their business origin..
The case of Australia is particularly interesting because it allows us to see how much the same brand strategy can have a very different trajectory in Brazil and in the European Union.
AUSTRALIA: from geographical reference to brand identity
Hart's Alimentos Naturais is a Brazilian company dedicated to healthy food products such as granolas, cereals, and protein bars. The company's history links the choice of the Australian concept to the experience of one of its founders in the country and to certain values associated with her lifestyle.
The company has trademarks in Brazil that incorporate the term, such as HART'S NATURAL GRANOLA AUSTRALIA, GRANOLA AUSTRALIA or CHOCOPOPS AUSTRALIA, and applied in September 2025 for the trademark for products in class 30.
The company has also expanded beyond Brazil. In May 2026, it filed a trademark application in Uruguay for products in classes 5 and 30.
But would this strategy be equally viable in the European Union?
Can a country's name be registered as a trademark in the European Union?
Let a word be the The name of a country, city, or region does not automatically prevent its registration as a trademark..
The filter is in the descriptiveness or not of geographical origin. The key, according to European jurisprudence, is to determine whether the consumer perceives "Australia" as an indicator of real origin or as an evocative/fantasy brand.
And here's the interesting part: for example, the EUIPO refused trademark no. 016746414 AUSTRALIA, in classes 12, 25, 28, 35, 37 (R 2207/2017-2), taking into account the size and political and economic weight of the country and considered that, due to its climate and harsh natural conditions, the sign could be perceived as indicating that the products and services are "built to withstand".
Specifically in the food sector, the ICELAND case (Grand Chamber, R 1238/2019-G) established that country names are perceived differently from other geographical indications because consumers tend to presume the national origin of products. The trademark was refused for products in classes 29, 30, 31, and 32 because the country projects a positive image—innovation, sustainability, nature—that can influence purchasing decisions.
But there's a second front that shouldn't be overlooked. Beyond the descriptive aspect, the fact that the brand is "AUSTRALIA" while the company is Brazilian and the products are of Brazilian origin could open the door to a ban. deceptive natureA sign that leads consumers to believe that products originate in Australia when they actually come from another country can be considered misleading regarding geographical origin. This obstacle is particularly problematic because—unlike descriptiveness—it cannot be overcome through distinctiveness acquired through use.
Ultimately, Registering a trademark with a country's name is possible, but the better known and more positively "image" the country has for those products or services, the more difficult it becomes.In food and wellness, a country like Australia (associated with nature, sport and healthy living) is likely to have the Office assess descriptiveness or risk of deception regarding origin.
And it's worth emphasizing that this problem isn't limited to registration: the use of the trademark can also be controversial. The common denominator is the same as in registration—the risk of deception regarding geographical origin—, but the difference is that, in use, That risk is channeled not only through trademark law (with the possible expiration of the trademark if its use is misleading), but above all because of the unfair competition, consumption and labeling, with open legitimacy for competitors and authorities.
The same brand can have different results depending on the territory.
The case also highlights an essential characteristic of trademark law: Rights are territorial, and a sign that is registrable in one country does not necessarily have to pass the test in another.
In Brazil, Hart's has successfully registered several trademarks incorporating the term AUSTRALIA, taking advantage of a provision expressly included in its legislation. Article 181 of the Industrial Property Law [1] establishes that a geographical name that does not constitute an indication of origin or a designation of origin may serve as a characteristic element of a trademark for a product or service, provided it does not mislead consumers about its true origin. In other words, the law does not authorize the registration of the geographical name as such, but rather its use as one of the elements that characterize and comprise the mark, under the essential condition that it does not create a deceptive association regarding the true origin of the products or services.
In the European Union, the analysis follows a similar logic—preventing the monopolization of descriptive terms or terms that could be misleading—but the EUIPO's practice has developed a particularly demanding criterion regarding certain geographical names. The case law (from...) Chiemsee[2]) has articulated a stepped test that requires: (i) identifying the geographical location designated by the brand and (ii) assessing the degree of awareness of that location by the relevant public; (iii) evaluating the suitability of the location to be the origin, manufacture or design of the products and services; (iv) assessing whether the public currently establishes a link between the location and the products or services; (v) if such a link does not exist today, determining whether it is reasonable to assume that it will be established in the future, taking into account the degree of familiarity of the public with the name and the characteristics of the location; and (vi) analyzing the relevance of the location to the quality or characteristics of the products and services in the eyes of the target public.
This criterion explains why the EUIPO has considered a name like "AUSTRALIA" to be merely descriptive or lacking distinctiveness, understanding that it evokes a particular attitude towards life and a reputation that can influence consumer choice. The outcome will always depend on the products and services, public perception, and the specific circumstances of the mark. However, it does demonstrate that a trademark strategy that is viable in the home market can encounter different obstacles when expanding internationally.
In the case of Hart's, there are currently no applications containing the term AUSTRALIA that are effective in any country of the European Union. Therefore, we do not yet know what the outcome of a potential application in that jurisdiction would be. Existing precedents, however, suggest that the use of AUSTRALIA as a trademark would have to undergo particularly careful scrutiny.
One more reason to analyze the registrability of a trademark not only from the market in which it originates, but also from those territories to which it is expected to extend in the future.
Lorena Sánchez Merino, Lawyer in the area of Partner Brands from Elzaburu.
[1] Law No. 9.279, dated May 14, 1996
[2] 05/04/1999, C-108/97 and C-109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230
