Name-Meshing & Choice of Law: The End of the Standardised Name?

A recent decision by the Frankenthal Local Court (Amtsgericht) dated 09.12.2025 – (Ref. 2a III 18/25) marks a turning point in international name law. For couples with international ties, the combination of a strategic choice of law and the 2025 Name Law Reform has opened up new creative possibilities: so-called "Name-Meshing".

The Case: Individuality vs. the German Registry Office

A couple married in New York. The husband is a US citizen, and the wife holds dual German-American citizenship. Both reside in the USA. Their wish: a joint married name formed by merging syllables of their respective birth names – the practice of "Name-Meshing," which is well-established in the US.

However, the competent German Registry Office (Standesamt) refused to recognise this name. The allegation: a violation of the German "Ordre Public" (public policy). It was argued that German law only recognises a closed catalogue of naming options (Typenzwang) – specifically "either-or" solutions or the classic double-barrelled name with a hyphen.

The Decision: A Victory for Private International Law (PIL)

The Family Court rejected this refusal and ordered the Registry Office to accept the name. The reasoning is of fundamental importance for strategic legal consultancy:

• Freedom of Choice under Art. 10 EGBGB: Spouses are not defenceless against German substantive law. Since one partner is a US citizen and both have their habitual residence in the USA, Art. 10 Para. 2 EGBGB allows for the choice of US name law.

  
  

• No Violation of Public Policy (Ordre Public): A foreign legal norm may only be ignored if its application leads to a result that is manifestly incompatible with the essential principles of German law.

  
  

• The Role of the 2025 Name Law Reform: The court clarified that the liberalisation of German name law on 01.05.2025 (permitting true double names) softened the strict "Typenzwang". If the chosen name – as with meshing – sufficiently expresses family affiliation through a logical combination of parts of the original surnames and is not a purely "fantasy" name, it is acceptable within the German legal framework.

  
  

Strategic Practical Implications

This case demonstrates that name law is not an unchangeable fate but a flexible asset. Particularly for expats, binational couples, or clients residing abroad, Private International Law (PIL) offers ways to reflect a couple’s identity in their name as it exists in their personal reality.

Relying solely on German substantive law (§ 1355 BGB) often leads to "limping" name changes – names recognised in one country but not the other. A timely declaration of choice of law prevents such discrepancies and secures the desired name for the German passport.

Conclusion

This decision proves the increasing cosmopolitanism of the German judiciary regarding modern family structures. However, those wishing to be "on the safe side" should not leave their name determination to chance or to the standard advice of a local registry office.

A name is a vital part of one’s identity – it deserves an equally precise legal construction.