Blond hair, countless goals, and incredible energy on and off the pitch. Erling Haaland is now not only one of the best strikers in the world but also a powerful, global commercial enterprise. However, with enormous fame comes enormous value, and this must be protected from the attempts of third parties. The case of the Norwegian striker perfectly illustrates the threats facing modern sports stars in the world of intellectual property law and sheds light on the crucial institution of bad faith trademark registration.
Before the Viking trademarks his name… a blockade at the EUIPO
The case, which is currently receiving particular attention due to the ongoing World Cup, began when Erling Haaland decided to formalize the protection of his personal brand within the European Union. He filed an application for international trademark registration for the ERLING HAALAND trademark (W01757402).
To the public's surprise, the procedure met with immediate legal resistance. It turned out that in 2022—right around the time of Haaland's high-profile transfer to Manchester City—a Polish citizen had beaten the star to it and registered an EU trademark (EUTM) for the word "HAALAND.".
This registration was exceptionally broad. It covered 16 product classes, securing products such as sportswear, shoes, protein bars, and energy drinks—precisely the sectors in which Haaland naturally develops and plans to expand his business. Furthermore, as soon as the footballer submitted his application, the Polish trademark holder launched a full-scale opposition to the registration of the footballer's trademark, designated number 003211777.
Creative defense and "Viking" from Polish halls
Faced with the ban on using his own name as a brand, Erling Haaland's representatives launched a counterattack, filing an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to invalidate the "HAALAND" trademark belonging to the Pole. The argument was clear: the application was made in bad faith (Article 59(1)(b) of the Trademark Act), and the registrant's sole purpose was to unlawfully profit from the young sniper's reputation and commercial appeal.
The Polish entrepreneur's defense proved unconvincing. The name "HAALAND" was said to have nothing to do with the Norwegian footballer, but to be an abbreviation of a supposed sports project called "High Advanced Activity Land." The name was supposedly inspired by the Polish word "hala" (e.g., sports hall) combined with the English "land." At the time of the application (2022), the Pole had allegedly not heard of Erling Haaland at all, as matches in foreign leagues are broadcast in Poland on premium paid television channels, which he did not own.
Appeal Chamber Judgment: Robert Lewandowski in the Background
EUIPO experts, and in the final ruling (the Board of Appeal's decision of May 2026) the appellate court as well, did not agree with this argument. The Office considered the Pole's explanations to be highly "creative" but completely lacking credibility.
The officials rightly pointed out, among other things, an obvious linguistic detail: the Polish word "hala" does not contain the double letter "a", which is so characteristic of the Norwegian spelling of the footballer's surname.
Interestingly, the justification for the decision included a reference to Robert Lewandowski. Haaland's lawyers demonstrated that between 2020 and 2022, Polish sports media wrote extensively and regularly about Erling Haaland, most often directly comparing him to Lewandowski in the context of the Bundesliga shooting competition. The EUIPO found it impossible that any Polish citizen interested in the sportswear or energy drink market could not have heard of Erling Haaland at the time. The registration was deemed bad faith and ultimately invalidated, and the blocking opposition was dismissed.
Summary and Lesson for Business
Erling Haaland's battle is a classic example of why intellectual property protection should precede global commercial expansion. Even as a household name, failure to register prior to registration exposes us to years of lengthy, costly, and complex legal disputes aimed at invalidating bad faith applications. For entrepreneurs and innovators, the lesson is clear: intellectual property is not only a defensive shield but, above all, a powerful financial tool.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of July 9, 2026.
author:
