A German anti-fascist organization is using intellectual property law in an unconventional way: by registering coded far-right slogans and symbols as trademarks, not to sell them, but to prevent anyone else from doing so.

Laut gegen Nazis e.V., partnering with advertising agency Jung von Matt, has secured trademark rights to coded extremist terminology, including 'Druck 18'—the name of a prominent right-wing online shop. The mechanism is simple in concept: once a trademark is held by an anti-fascist group, no one else can register or use it commercially without permission. This repurposes standard intellectual property law as a counter-extremism tool.

The financial stakes are material. The Guardian has reported that merchandise bearing Nazi codes and symbols generates significant revenue for German far-right organizations. The trademark strategy targets that income stream directly: by locking up branded identifiers, the organizations make it harder for extremist retailers to protect their commercial names and build the brand recognition that merchandise sales depend on.

The focus on coded language is deliberate and reveals how German law has inadvertently shaped extremist strategy. §86a of the Criminal Code bans explicit Nazi symbols, which forced far-right actors to develop alphanumeric codes—numerical substitutes for banned letters or phrases—that carry the same ideological meaning but are legally harder to prosecute. 'Druck 18' encodes initials linked to Adolf Hitler. These codes exist because direct use would trigger enforcement. By securing trademarks on the coded variants, Laut gegen Nazis and Jung von Matt are closing a legal loophole that the symbol ban inadvertently left open.

The campaign, operating under Rights Against the Right, exploits a commercial vulnerability: far-right online retailers depend on brand recognition. A shop name that cannot be legally protected—or that is actively held by an opponent—loses a core commercial asset. The trademark holder gains enforcement tools: injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, and the ability to challenge competing registrations at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office.

The approach operates within a larger tension in German law between strong constitutional protections and the practical limits of criminal bans. Prohibiting explicit symbols displaced extremist visual culture rather than eliminating it, leading far-right actors to develop coded alternatives. The trademark strategy sidesteps this problem: it does not require proving ideological intent—the difficult evidentiary standard in §86a cases. It relies instead on the routine machinery of commercial registration.

Scaling this model presents challenges. Trademark registration demands resources, legal expertise, and advance intelligence about which terms are gaining traction in extremist networks. The NGO must run a continuous monitoring and filing operation. Each newly coded phrase that enters the merchandise supply chain represents a gap if missed early. The far-right ecosystem has shown capacity to generate new codes; the trademark strategy is inherently reactive.

Yet the financial pressure is real. Revenue from branded merchandise funds far-right organizational activity. Legal uncertainty over brand ownership raises the operational cost and risk of running extremist retail in Germany. As a single tool, the approach has clear boundaries. As part of a broader enforcement and civil-society framework, however, it introduces friction into a system that previously faced none.