The question of whether a realistic photograph of a human face can be registered as a trademark has long sparked heated debate among lawyers. Recently, this discussion reached the highest level: the Budapest Metropolitan Court turned to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling in a case involving a Hungarian law firm. The story began in February 2025, when the firm attempted to register a photographic portrait of one of its employees as a logo for legal services and computer programs. The registrar partially refused the application, and now European judges must decide whether our faces possess the same “distinctive character” as a brand name or a graphic symbol.
The core issue of the case is whether a person’s portrait can, by itself, indicate the origin of a product or service to a consumer.
There are two opposing views on this matter.
Proponents of registration argue that the human face is unique by nature and, therefore, ideally suited for the role of a trademark. However, judges in Hungary lean toward a different perspective: they note that faces have a limited range of shapes and colors, creating fewer variations than geometric figures. Furthermore, the human ability to recognize faces is typically linked to personal relationships. We remember thousands of faces of acquaintances, but in a store, looking at packaging, a consumer has no personal connection with the model in the photo. Moreover, human memory is imperfect: we can rarely compare two faces side-by-side, and distinguishing them based on subtle nuances from memory is extremely difficult. Faces are also hard to describe in words, which adds to the arguments against their registration as brands.
A separate point of contention is whether a person’s public profile helps make their face a trademark. The court asks whether a person’s fame matters for registering goods in any field, or only in the one where that person directly works. Today, we often see photos of celebrities in advertisements, but do we perceive them as a brand symbol? When Brad Pitt advertises watches, the consumer understands that the actor is merely an “ambassador” paid to appear in the frame, not a symbol indicating that he or his company manufactured the watches. This distinguishes a portrait from a name: we are accustomed to surnames being company names (such as “Ford” or “McDonald’s”), but a photograph on packaging is usually perceived only as an illustration or an advertisement.
Of course, we know successful examples, such as Colonel Sanders on the KFC logo or the face on Uncle Ben’s rice packaging. However, these images are usually highly stylized or have become recognizable due to decades of massive advertising. In the case of ordinary photos of “mere mortals,” everything is more complicated. For instance, portraits on law firm websites are the norm, but they merely communicate who is providing the service rather than serving as a unique corporate brand.
This case is of crucial importance for the future of advertising and law.
If the CJEU decides that faces in themselves lack distinctive character, it will change the game for many brands that build their identity on personalities. Ultimately, while every face is unique, that does not mean it can automatically become a legally protected mark. As with the fairy-tale mirror, the answer to the question “who is the most recognizable of all” now depends not on beauty, but on how the human eye perceives commercial symbols in everyday life.
Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.
