Exclusive: Appeal launched over ‘Russian warship’ trademark rejection

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Exclusive: Appeal launched over ‘Russian warship’ trademark rejection

Russian ship 600-compborder.jpg

The phrase ‘Russian warship, go fuck yourself’ went viral in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the corresponding EUTM application failed

The applicant behind an EU trademark application for the phrase 'Russian warship, go fuck yourself' has appealed against the EUIPO’s decision to reject the filing in December, Managing IP can reveal.

Legal representatives for the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine filed an appeal on Tuesday, February 21.

The administration’s representatives, Brussels-based law firm Bukovnik & Kulbaba IP Guardians, said the rejection decision was groundless and that they planned to take their appeal as far as necessary.

“The decision says people would consider the mark to be immoral, but there is no evidence as to why,” said Taras Kulbaba, a partner at the firm.

“The examiner also said there is no evidence that mark has a positive message but does not explain why.”

Official grounds for the appeal must be submitted by April 23.

The EUTM application was filed in March last year, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was closely watched as an example of how the EUIPO would handle issues of morality.

Products launched using the mark, which sought to cover goods including merchandise and clothes, would have been used to encourage donations to Ukraine.

At first, the application was filed under the name Roman Hrybov, which is the Ukrainian version of Roman Gribov, the soldier who first uttered the phrase.

In June, ownership of the mark was transferred to the State Border Guard Service, the body tasked with policing Ukraine’s borders.

The application was a homage to Gribov’s parting call to an advancing Russian warship before he and other soldiers were captured and detained last February.

The phrase went viral on social media soon after and became a symbol of defiance in support of Ukraine.

But unlike other EUTMs filed in a similar vein, such as 'Je suis Charlie' and 'I can't breathe', this one had an extra hurdle to clear: its use of a swear word increased the chances of it being refused on morality grounds.

However, some practitioners held the view that – in the EU at least – the phrase would not be considered immoral due to Europe’s support for Ukraine.

Tomorrow, February 24, marks exactly one year since Russia invaded Ukraine.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Gift this article