Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad