Log in


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
Boards of Appeal refuses FUCKING FREEZING

Another case that kept the Boards of Appeal busy with the evaluation of the accepted principles of morality.

In January 2010, Mr Thomas Türpitz had filed an application for the Community Trademark


For goods in leather or imitation of leather, accessories and clothes in Classes 18 and 25.

The OHIM had refused the application with respect to all the goods applied for, pursuant to Article 7(1)(f) CTMR, since, in the opinion of the Examiner, the sign was “contrary to public policy or to the accepted the principle of morality”.

Mr Türpitz appealed the decision objecting that Article 7(1)(f) CTMR is not intended to impede the registration of a sign on the grounds that this sign is merely felt to be of bad taste, or is particularly suggestive.

If it is true that ‘fucking’ is a vulgar term meaning “having sexual intercourse”, it must be considered that the combination with “freezing” creates a totally different expression, meaning “extremely cold” - and it loses any amoral or offensive nature.

The term ‘fucking’, according to Mr Türpitz is a common way of intensifying an adjective, replacing the adverbs ‘very’ or ‘particularly’.

Lastly, the applicant claimed that “Fucking Freezing” is certainly not contrary to any basic principles of public policy.

The Board of Appeal did not agree, and considered that “Fucking Freezing” has in fact a vulgar and offensive meaning, and it is therefore “contrary to public policy and accepted principles of moral” (case R 168/2011-1).

The Board recognized that the concept of “accepted principles of morality” is dynamic and that it constantly changes: many words or actions that were contrary to acceptable principles of morality in the past, are considered morally acceptable today.

It is difficult to answer to the question whether the language and the morality adapt to the society or the society adapts to the language and to the principles of morality.

However, in the opinion of the Boards, such adaptation and changes do not have to be promoted by trade mark laws.

The decision of the OHIM has been upheld and the registration refused pursuant to Article 7(1)(f) CTMR.

Posted by: Benedetta Cordovado @ 15.42
Tags: OHIM Boards of Appeal; Refusal; sign contrary to public policy and principles of morality,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2681
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment

MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.

The Class 46 Archive








+44 (0)116 2747355

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox