By decision of 20 February 2026, the EUIPO rejected European Union trade mark application No. 019243910 filed by PROVALLIANCE for a figurative sign composed of the verbal elements “HAIR BEAUTY CAMPUS”. The Office based its refusal on Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (EUTMR), considering the sign to be both descriptive and devoid of distinctive character for all the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 16, 41 and 44.
The decision once again reflects the EUIPO’s strict approach toward English-language signs consisting of common sectoral terminology, particularly in the fields of professional training and specialised services.
Under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, signs which consist exclusively of indications descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services—such as their nature, purpose or intended use—shall not be registered. Article 7(1)(b) further excludes signs devoid of any distinctive character. Pursuant to Article 7(2), these absolute grounds apply even if the refusal exists in only part of the European Union.
In accordance with settled case law of the Court of Justice, the assessment must be carried out in relation to the goods and services applied for and the perception of the relevant public. It is sufficient that the sign be descriptive in one official language of the Union for refusal to be justified.
In the present case, the EUIPO assessed the mark from the perspective of the English-speaking public, finding that the terms composing the sign were immediately intelligible and directly evocative of the services concerned.
The Office observed that the words “hair”, “beauty” and “campus” have clear and ordinary meanings in English. Taken together, they will be perceived by the relevant consumer as designating a campus or structured centre dedicated to hair beauty—that is, a commercial and educational entity specialising in hairdressing and hair care.
This meaning was found to be directly linked to all the goods and services claimed:
The EUIPO concluded that the sign conveys clear information as to the subject matter and purpose of the services. The combination of the terms does not create any semantic tension, unusual juxtaposition or conceptual departure capable of conferring distinctiveness. The connection between the sign and the goods and services was considered sufficiently direct and specific to justify refusal under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.
The mark was filed as a figurative sign and included a graphic element—a red square containing a black sign emerging from the upper left corner—as well as a two-line layout with different colours and typefaces.
However, the Office held that these graphic components were neither original nor striking enough to divert the relevant public’s attention from the descriptive message conveyed by the verbal elements. The stylisation was characterised as commonplace and lacking any independent conceptual impact.
In line with established case law, simple or decorative figurative elements cannot neutralise the descriptiveness of a sign where the verbal elements dominate the overall impression. Here, the overall perception remained that of an indication describing the nature and intended purpose of the goods and services.
The EUIPO further noted that the applicant did not submit any observations in response to the statement of objections issued on 14 October 2025. Pursuant to Article 94 EUTMR, the decision was therefore based on grounds on which the applicant had the opportunity to comment.
In the absence of arguments, in particular concerning acquired distinctiveness under Article 7(3) EUTMR, the Office upheld its objections and rejected the application in its entirety.
From a strategic standpoint, the decision serves as a reminder that marketing-driven concepts such as “campus”, “academy” or “institute” will rarely qualify as registrable trade marks where they merely designate the structure or purpose of the services offered. However appealing from a commercial perspective, a sign that transparently describes the activity cannot fulfil the essential function of a trade mark, namely to indicate commercial origin.
Conclusion
By refusing registration of “HAIR BEAUTY CAMPUS”, the EUIPO reaffirmed a consistent line of practice: a sign that is overly explicit as to the nature and purpose of the services cannot be monopolised as a trade mark. Commercial clarity may be attractive from a branding standpoint; legally, it becomes an obstacle when it deprives the sign of distinctive character within the meaning of the EUTMR.
For groups developing integrated training and service networks, effective protection will require either genuinely arbitrary or suggestive signs, or, where appropriate, robust evidence of acquired distinctiveness through use.
