The “MAGIC PUSSY” trademark and the risk of censorship in the EU

Can a trademark be rejected on moral grounds? The “MAGIC PUSSY” case has sparked a heated debate about the EUIPO‘s discretion in assessing what is offensive and what is not. After an initial rejection due to alleged vulgarity, the decision was overturned on appeal. This case highlights regulatory gaps and the risk of arbitrary censorship in trademark law. Find out what happened and the implications for businesses.

Trademarks and morality: who decides what is acceptable?

Trademark law includes clear rules and objective criteria, but also more nuanced principles that leave room for subjective interpretation. One of these is morality: to what extent can a business name be deemed acceptable? Who determines whether a trademark is offensive or merely provocative?

The case of the “MAGIC PUSSY” trademark is a prime example of this issue. A Latvian company applied to register the name for coffee and chocolate products, both physical and virtual. However, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) initially rejected the application, arguing that the word “PUSSY” could be perceived as vulgar and contrary to public morality.

On the one hand, this reasoning might seem justified; on the other, it raises concerns about consistency in EUIPO decisions. The word “PUSSY” has multiple meanings: the most common is “kitten”, but it can also carry vulgar connotations in English. Still, numerous trademarks containing the same word have been registered without objection. So why was it deemed unacceptable in this case?

Why did EUIPO reject the “MAGIC PUSSY” trademark?

To understand the EUIPO‘s rejection, we need to examine the relevant legislation. EU Regulation 2017/1001 on trademarks outlines the criteria for the registrability of distinctive signs. Article 7(1)(f) prohibits acceptance of trademarks “contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality”.

The purpose of this provision is clear: to prevent the registration of trademarks that may be offensive, discriminatory, or harmful to human dignity. However, applying this rule can be challenging, especially when the line between provocation and offense is blurred (for more details Considerations on the lawfulness of trademarks: an analysis of the ‘Pablo Escobar’ case – Canella Camaiora).

One major issue is the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a trademark contrary to public morality. Morality is a fluid concept, varying over time and across cultures: a word considered offensive in one cultural context may be harmless in another. For example, terms regarded as vulgar in the U.S. might not carry the same weight in the Baltic states or other parts of the EU.

Additionally, EUIPO’s discretion in assessing these matters can lead to inconsistent decisions. The “MAGIC PUSSY” case illustrates this: while this trademark was rejected, others with the same word, like “PUSSY DELUXE”, “PUSSY LOUNGE” and “#NOT4PUSSY”, were accepted. If the term were inherently vulgar and unacceptable, why was it approved in other contexts?

Another point to consider is the product category associated with the trademark. In this case, the term would be linked to coffee and chocolate—everyday consumer goods with no connection to vulgar content. Would the average consumer really perceive a sexual reference in a food-related trademark?

The risk of a moralistic and subjective assessment is clear: without clear and consistent criteria, trademark law could become a tool of discretionary censorship, harming businesses and stifling entrepreneurial creativity.

How did the case end? The reversal of the decision

After the EUIPO rejection, the Latvian company appealed the decision to the Board of Appeal, presenting four main arguments:

• the word “PUSSY” has multiple meanings, and the public wouldn’t automatically associate it with vulgarity. The inclusion of “MAGIC” supports a playful or whimsical interpretation;
• EUIPO has previously registered other trademarks with the same word. If a term has been deemed acceptable before, it shouldn’t be suddenly rejected without solid justification;
• the trademark is linked to everyday products like coffee and chocolate, with no connection to explicitly offensive or vulgar content;
• the EUIPO’s rejection represents an excessive restriction of business freedom. Trademark law should not regulate bad taste, but only prevent registrations that are truly offensive to the public.

After reviewing the case, the Board of Appeal overturned the EUIPO decision, ruling that the trademark could not be considered inherently offensive. The reasoning was as follows:

• not all words with a potentially vulgar meaning are automatically unacceptable;
• adding the word “MAGIC” reduces the likelihood of negative interpretation, reinforcing the playful nature of the trademark;
• the existence of similar registered trademarks shows that EUIPO should have ensured greater consistency in its evaluation.

This decision is significant because it strengthens the principle of predictability in trademark law. If EUIPO assessments were overly subjective, businesses would be forced to self-censor their branding choices for fear of arbitrary rejection.

The “MAGIC PUSSY” case shows how difficult it is to define what is morally acceptable and highlights the need for clearer and more consistent criteria for trademark registration. Morality is an important concept, but it should not become a tool of discretionary censorship.