Greek Trademark Office rejects application containing an expletive
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Expert AnalysisLocal Insights

Greek Trademark Office rejects application containing an expletive

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
sign-5826751.jpg

Evangelia Sioumala of Patrinos & Kilimiris considers the morals of the story as the Greek examiner takes a conservative stance regarding a trademark application involving the f-word

In a decision of the Greek Trademark Office issued in January 2023, the examiner considered whether the registration of a trademark containing the word “fuck” is contrary to the accepted principles of morality and the public order.

Specifically, the applicant filed an application for the word trademark ‘fuckmyart’ to cover clothes in class 25.

The Greek examiner rejected the registration of the trademark on the basis of absolute grounds due to this being contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality, ruling that the Greek translation of the above trademark “has an abusive and blasphemous content that offends public order, morals and accepted moral principles in relation to the fundamental values and standards that Greek society adheres to”.

In relation to the examiner’s decision, it could be argued that the registration of the trademark ‘fuckmyart’ does not offend the public order or morals since the word “fuck” when referring to an object or to any intangible good, such as “art” in the present case, cannot have a literal offensive meaning but could only have a rather euphemistic sense, meaning “destroy my art”.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that the f-word is widely used in Greece, especially among younger people, who are very familiar with the use of many English slang words and habitually include them in their normal vocabulary, without considering them to be offensive, having the meaning of “damn”, “let it go” or “ignore it”.

The Fack Ju Göhte case and other applications

In the above context, C-240/18, concerning ‘Fack Ju Göhte’, should also be considered. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided that to assess whether the trademark is in opposition to the public order or morals, it must, at the time of the examination, be perceived by the relevant public as contrary to the fundamental moral values and standards of society as they exist at that time (C-240/18, Section 41).

Said examination is to be based on the perception of a reasonable person with average thresholds of sensitivity and tolerance, taking into account the context in which the mark may be encountered. To that end, elements such as legislation and administrative practices, public opinion and, where appropriate, the way in which the relevant public has reacted in the past to that sign or similar signs, as well as any other factor which may make it possible to assess the perception of that public, are relevant (C-240/18, Section 42).

Based on the above, the court found that despite the assimilation of the term “Fack ju” to the English phrase “Fuck you”, this was not perceived as morally unacceptable by the German-speaking public at large and the perception of that English phrase by the German-speaking public is not necessarily the same as the perception thereof by the English-speaking public, since sensitivity in the mother tongue may be greater than in a foreign language (C-240/18, Section 68).

In line with the above decision, the trademark application ‘Fucking Awesome’ was similarly not considered to be offensive but rather as having a vulgar message that would be understood by the relevant public as a promotional expression (see CJEU T-178/22, Section 29).

Finally, with regard to the word “fuck” in particular, a few EU trademark applications have been registered by the EUIPO including said term, such as: ‘Rich as fuck’, ‘Fucking hell’, ‘Unfuck the economy’ and ‘Comme des fuckdown’.

Final thoughts

In relation to the examination of whether a trademark application is in opposition to the public order and morals, the general context in which the trademark is found, as well as the perception of a reasonable person who is not exceptionally puritanical, should be taken into account. Nevertheless, the Greek examiner in the present case seems to have adopted a rather conservative view, providing a stricto sensu interpretation of the word “fuck”.

Unfortunately, the examiner’s decision was not appealed by the applicant and therefore the chance the trademark had to be examined by a higher body, and therefore proceed to a more thorough examination, was missed.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article