Fundamental rights: Trademark office or moral guardian?
Iancu v Brunetti: A marker in the moral policing of IP, say lawyers
Mircea Moira / Shutterstock.com
Last year the UK Intellectual Property Office ran into the same problem that its US counterpart faced three years ago: what happens when the meaning of traditionally offensive or abusive terms changes, and how should IP offices react? Rory O’Neill reports.
A lot of thought has been given to offensive trademarks over the past few years, with several cases taking the spotlight.
Since 2017, the US Supreme Court has issued two landmark rulings which have rendered obstacles to registering “offensive” marks increasingly obsolete.
In the EU, meanwhile, the focus has turned to the role of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in guarding against the registration of marks which violate “accepted morality”.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at firstname.lastname@example.org
Language, queer, IPO, Gem Kennedy, EUIPO, trademark, Simon Tam, Supreme Court, Rebel Dykes, Iancu v Brunetti, Queers & Co