In the world of intellectual property, the intersection between trade marks and public morality can lead to significant controversies. Understanding the balance between creative expression and societal standards is crucial. Let’s delve into this nuanced topic, exploring these cases and the regulatory framework governing trade marks deemed contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality.
Understanding Article 4(1)(f) of the EU Directive
Article 4(1)(f) of the EU Directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks establishes that trade marks which are contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality shall not be registered or, if registered, can be declared invalid. This directive ensures that trade marks respect the fundamental values and standards that are accepted by the social consensus within the EU.
For detailed guidelines on what constitutes accepted principles of morality, the EUIPO guidelines provide comprehensive insight.
● The Covidiot Case
One of the most talked-about cases is the "Covidiot" trade mark application. Amid the global pandemic, this term emerged to describe individuals disregarding COVID-19 safety measures. However, its registration as a trade mark was denied on the grounds that it was against accepted principles of morality
The decision reflects the sensitivity required in evaluating trade marks during times of global crises, underscoring the need for societal consideration in trade mark registrations. For a detailed examination of this case, you can visit the EUIPO’s eSearch.
The rejection of the "Covidiot" trade mark highlights the role of public sentiment in trade mark law. During a time when the world was grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, registering a term that mocked individuals or trivialised the serious public health guidelines was seen as highly inappropriate. The term not only offended those affected by the pandemic but also potentially undermined public health efforts by promoting a dismissive attitude towards necessary safety measures. The case itself is not yet final.
● La Mafia se sienta a la mesa
Another illustrative case is the "La Mafia se sienta a la mesa" (The Mafia sits at the table) trade mark. Initially registered in Spain, it faced significant backlash and legal challenges due to its apparent glorification of the Mafia, which is associated with criminal activities.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) eventually ruled against the trade mark, deeming it contrary to public policy and morality. This case highlights how cultural and historical contexts can influence the perception and acceptability of trade marks.
The "La Mafia se sienta a la mesa" case underscores the importance of considering the societal and historical connotations of certain terms. The Mafia, known for its violent and illegal activities, is not a trivial or humorous reference. Associating it with a business, even as a form of branding, was seen as trivialising the suffering and fear caused by such organisations. The decision to refuse this trade mark was a reflection of the EU's commitment to upholding societal values and rejecting any form of glorification of crime.
● The Pablo Escobar Case
In a similar vein, the "Pablo Escobar" trade mark application was rejected due to its association with the infamous drug lord. The EUIPO determined that the name was offensive and contrary to public policy, as it could be seen as condoning criminal activity.
This decision underscores the importance of considering the broader implications of using names and terms that have strong negative connotations. For more on this ruling, visit the EUIPO's case law page and the Curia website.
The rejection of the "Pablo Escobar" trade mark serves as a powerful example of the impact that historical figures with criminal backgrounds can have on public morality. Escobar's legacy as a drug lord responsible for widespread violence and suffering means that any commercial use of his name could be perceived as glorifying or trivialising his actions. This decision by the EUIPO highlights the office's role in ensuring that trade marks do not offend public sensibilities or appear to endorse criminal behaviour.
Common Practice 14 and EUIPN's Role
The EU Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) has established a common practice (CP14) to ensure a unified approach across the EU in assessing trade marks against public policy and morality principles. This practice aims to harmonise the evaluation process, providing clear guidelines and fostering cooperation among IP offices.
The publication and implementation of CP14 represent significant progress in maintaining consistent standards across the EU. For more information, you can read the EUIPO's publication on CP14.
The efforts of the EUIPN in establishing CP14 reflect the importance of a collaborative approach in intellectual property regulation. By harmonising the criteria and processes for evaluating trade marks, the EUIPN ensures that all member states adhere to the same high standards, thereby protecting public policy and morality across the region. This unified approach not only simplifies the trade mark application process but also upholds the EU's commitment to maintaining societal values.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of trade marks that intersect with public policy and morality is challenging but essential. The EUIPO and other IP offices play a crucial role in ensuring that trade marks respect societal norms and values while fostering creativity and innovation.
By understanding the principles laid out in Article 4(1)(f) and examining notable cases, we gain insight into the delicate balance required in trade mark regulation. The continued efforts of the EUIPN and the implementation of common practices like CP14 ensure a cohesive approach across the EU, safeguarding both public interest and intellectual property rights．
References: https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/news/trade-marks-contrary-to-public-policy-or-accepted-principles-of-morality