A Brazilian company sells granola, cereal, and bars under the brand 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 the name of a country is not prohibited per se; the problem arises when consumers might interpret that geographic name as information about the products or services rather than as an indicator of their business origin.
The AUSTRALIA case is particularly interesting because it illustrates the extent to which the same branding strategy can play out very differently in Brazil and in the European Union.
AUSTRALIA: From Geographic Reference to Brand Identity
Hart’s Alimentos Naturais is a Brazilian company that specializes in healthy food products such as granola, cereal, and protein bars. The company’s history links its choice of the “Australia” concept to one of its founders’ experiences in that country and to certain values associated with her lifestyle.
The company has registrations in Brazil that include the term, such as HART’S NATURAL GRANOLA AUSTRALIA, GRANOLA AUSTRALIA, and CHOCOPOPS AUSTRALIA, and filed an application in September 2025 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 the name of a country be registered as a trademark in the European Union?
The fact that a word is the name of a country, a city, or a region does not automatically prevent it from being registered as a trademark.
The key lies in whether or not the geographical origin is descriptive. According to European case law, the key is to determine whether consumers perceive “Australia” as an indicator of actual origin or as an evocative or fanciful trademark.
And here’s the interesting part: for example, the EUIPO rejected trademark No. 016746414 “AUSTRALIA” in classes 12, 25, 28, 35, and 37 (R 2207/2017-2), taking into account the country’s political and economic stature and weight, and concluded that, given its climate and harsh natural conditions, the sign could be perceived as indicating that the goods and services are “built to last.”
And, specifically in the food sector, in the ICELAND case (Grand Chamber, R 1238/2019-G), it was established that the names of countries are perceived differently from other geographical indications, because consumers tend to assume the national origin of the products. In that case, the trademark was denied for products in classes 29, 30, 31, and 32, as the country projects a positive image—innovation, sustainability, nature—capable of influencing purchasing decisions.
But there is a second issue that should not be overlooked. Beyond descriptiveness, the fact that the trademark is “AUSTRALIA” while the company is Brazilian and the products are of Brazilian origin could open the door to a ban on the grounds of misleading nature: a mark that leads consumers to believe that the products come from Australia when they actually come from another country may be considered misleading regarding geographic origin. And this obstacle is particularly sensitive because—unlike descriptiveness—it cannot be overcome by distinctiveness acquired through use.
In short, it is possible to register a trademark using the name of a country, but the better known the country is and the better its “image” is for those products or services, the more difficult it becomes. In the food and wellness sectors, a country like Australia—which is associated with nature, sports, and healthy living—is likely to raise concerns at the Trademark Office regarding descriptiveness or the risk of misleading consumers about the origin.
And it is worth emphasizing that this issue is not limited to registration: the use of the trademark can also be controversial. The common denominator is the same as in the registration process—the risk of misleading consumers regarding the geographic origin—but the difference is that, in the context of use, this risk is addressed not only by trademark law (which may result in the trademark’s revocation if its use is misleading) but, above all, by laws governing unfair competition, consumer protection, and labeling, with standing to bring claims open to competitors and authorities.
The same brand can yield different results depending on the region
The case also highlights a fundamental characteristic of trademark law: rights are territorial, and a mark that is registrable in one country is not necessarily eligible for registration in another.
In Brazil, Hart’s has successfully registered several trademarks that include the term “AUSTRALIA” by taking advantage of a provision expressly provided for in Brazilian law. Article 181 of the Industrial Property Law [1] establishes that a geographic name that does not constitute an indication of source or a designation of origin may serve as a distinctive element of a trademark for a product or service, provided that it does not mislead as to the true origin. In other words, the law does not authorize the registration of the geographic name as such, but rather its use as one of the elements that characterize and comprise the mark, subject to the essential condition that it does not create a misleading association regarding the true origin of the goods or services.
In the European Union, the analysis is based on a similar rationale—to prevent the monopolization of descriptive terms or terms that could be misleading—but EUIPO’s practice has developed a particularly stringent standard with respect to certain geographic names. Case law (beginning with Chiemsee[2]) has established a multi-step test that requires: (i) identifying the geographic location designated by the trademark; (ii) assessing the degree of familiarity with that location among the relevant public; (iii) evaluating the suitability of the location as the origin, place of manufacture, or place of design of the goods and services; (iv) assessing whether the public currently associates the place with the goods or services; (v) if no such association exists today, determining whether it is reasonable to assume that one will be established in the future, taking into account the public’s familiarity with the name and the characteristics of the place; and (vi) analyzing the significance of the place for the quality or characteristics of the goods and services in the eyes of the target public.
This criterion explains why the EUIPO has come to consider a name such as “AUSTRALIA” to be descriptive or lacking distinctiveness, on the grounds that it evokes a certain attitude toward life and a reputation that may influence consumer choice. The outcome will always depend on the goods and services, public perception, and the specific circumstances surrounding the mark. But it does demonstrate that a viable trademark strategy in the home market may face different obstacles when it goes global.
In the case of Hart’s, there is currently no application on file containing the term “AUSTRALIA” that would be effective in any European Union country. 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 withstand particularly rigorous scrutiny.
Yet another reason to assess a trademark’s registrability not only in the market where it originates, but also in the territories to which it is likely to expand in the future.
Lorena Sánchez Merino, attorneyin the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu.
[1] Law No. 9,279, dated May 14, 1996
[2] May 4, 1999, C-108/97 and C-109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230