EUIPO: Truth Social EU Trademark Invalidated for Bad Faith

• The European Union Intellectual Property Office's Board of Appeal invalidated the EU trademark for "Truth Social."
• The decision, R2260/2025-4, found the applicant was fully aware of Donald J. Trump's highly publicized plans.
• The invalidation was based on a finding of bad faith in the trademark application.
• This case clarifies the level of public knowledge required to establish an applicant's awareness of another party's sign.

The invalidation of the Donald Trump Truth Social trademark due to bad faith serves as a clear precedent.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently issued a significant ruling concerning the "Truth Social" trademark. In its decision, identified as R2260/2025-4, the EUIPO's Board of Appeal (BoA) determined that the European Union trademark for "Truth Social" should be invalidated. This decision directly addresses the circumstances surrounding the application for the mark.

The core of the BoA's finding was that the applicant for the "Truth Social" EU trademark possessed full awareness of the extensively publicized intentions of Donald J. Trump. These plans, which were widely known, pertained to the establishment of a social media platform. The BoA concluded that this prior knowledge on the part of the applicant was a critical factor in their assessment, leading to the ultimate invalidation of the trademark.

The invalidation of the "Truth Social" trademark by the EUIPO's Board of Appeal was specifically grounded in the principle of bad faith. Under European Union trademark law, an application filed in bad faith occurs when an applicant seeks to register a mark with dishonest intentions, often to exploit or undermine the rights of another party. This concept is central to maintaining fairness and integrity within the EU trademark system.

A key aspect of determining bad faith often revolves around the applicant's knowledge of pre-existing signs or plans. The EUIPO's decision in this case highlights the stringent standard applied when assessing an applicant's awareness. The question posed by the Board of Appeal was precisely how much public exposure is necessary before a trademark applicant can no longer credibly claim ignorance of another entity's activities or proposed marks. The BoA found little difficulty in concluding that the publicity surrounding Donald Trump's plans was sufficient to establish the applicant's full awareness, thereby substantiating the finding of bad faith.

This ruling by the European Union Intellectual Property Office carries substantial implications for entities seeking trademark protection within the EU. The decision reinforces the EUIPO's firm stance on the requirement for good faith in trademark applications, particularly when well-known individuals or organizations are involved. It underscores that extensive public knowledge of a proposed venture can be a decisive factor in proving an applicant's awareness, even without direct communication or formal notification.

The invalidation of the Donald Trump Truth Social trademark due to bad faith serves as a clear precedent. It indicates that applicants must conduct thorough due diligence and cannot feign ignorance of widely publicized plans that might conflict with their own trademark filings. This case provides valuable guidance on the threshold of "publicity" that the EUIPO considers sufficient to establish an applicant's knowledge, thereby influencing future assessments of bad faith in similar trademark disputes across the European Union.

Lawyers advising clients on EU trademark applications must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure no prior public knowledge or use exists that could lead to a bad faith invalidation, especially for highly publicized brands. This case reinforces the EUIPO's strict stance on applicant awareness of existing signs.

Source: Original reporting via EUIPO decision