BULGARIA: BLUE and RED ZONE Marks Lose Their Trademark Status

In two recent decisions, the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court ruled to invalidate trademark registrations for СИНЯ ЗОНА (BLUE ZONE) and ЧЕРВЕНА ЗОНА (RED ZONE), citing public policy and deceptiveness. 

The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court ordered the invalidation of two trademark registrations, overturning the lower instance decisions which had upheld the trademark registrations for СИНЯ ЗОНА (BLUE ZONE) and ЧЕРВЕНА ЗОНА (RED ZONE), both stylized and registered by BASSMANIYA-1 EOOD for goods and services including clothing, transport, and hospitality (Nice Classes 25, 39, and 43). 

The judgments were in cases No. 853/25 and No. 200/25 and were delivered on July 3, 2025.  

The Supreme Court upheld the position of Sofia’s municipal parking authority—Urban Mobility Center—which, joined by other public entities during the administrative phase, argued that the terms are integral to the regulatory framework governing municipal parking and should not be subject to private trademark monopolization. The Court based its decision on provisions prohibiting trademarks contrary to public policy and trademarks that are deceptive. 

In Bulgaria and other European countries, color-coded zones denote municipal parking regimes. But does mere overlap with such terms justify barring trademark registration? While certain regulatory terms should indeed remain free in the public interest, the rationale behind that is far less convincing when parking-related terms are applied to goods and services like clothing and hospitality. It is difficult to see how granting exclusive rights in such unrelated product categories would undermine public order.  

The same applies regarding deceptiveness: It is hard to believe that someone buying a jacket labeled RED ZONE or staying in a hotel named BLUE ZONE would think they are engaging with a municipal parking authority. 

That said, what makes the unfolding of this series of cases particularly puzzling is that it seems driven by a reasonable concern about monopolizing parking-related terms, but then fails to stop there. The earlier finding of descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness by the Bulgarian Patent Office regarding “rental of parking spaces” in Class 39 had already redressed that concern and struck a balance between private rights and the public domain—although one could reasonably argue that transport-related services in Class 39 should also have fallen under these objections. Resorting to public policy and deceptiveness, therefore, appears so unwarranted here, so excessive, that the cancellation regarding the broader goods and services, like clothing and hospitality, feels more like collateral damage than sound judgment.  

As a result, a legal stretch like this may have put an end to trademarks like BLUE and RED ZONEs altogether, but it has also left a whole new gray zone in Bulgarian trademark case law.   

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association