Background
In October 2021, Claudio Lopes, a Luxembourg businessman, applied to register the EU trade mark TRUTH SOCIAL for advertising, IT and online social networking services.
The cancellation action was brought by T Media Tech LLC, the company behind Donald Trump's social media platform TRUTH SOCIAL. The company argued that its platform had already been publicly announced and heavily reported in the media before the EU filing was made.
The EUIPO Cancellation Division agreed and invalidated the registration. Claudio Lopes appealed.
Key Issues
1. Did the trade mark owner know about Trump's TRUTH SOCIAL platform?
The Board concluded that he did.
The evidence showed:
US trade mark applications for TRUTH SOCIAL had been filed before the EU filing date.
Trump's planned social media platform received extensive international publicity on 20 and 21 October 2021.
The EU trade mark application was filed on 21 October 2021, only one day after the official announcement.
Media coverage appeared across Europe, including Luxembourg, where the proprietor lived.
The Board considered it "inconceivable" that an experienced entrepreneur could have been unaware of the publicity surrounding the launch.
2. Was the similarity a coincidence?
The Board said no.
The sign registered by the proprietor was identical to the sign already being used and promoted by Trump's business. The services covered by the EU registration also overlapped with services connected to the social media platform.
The close timing between the public announcement and the filing was viewed as a strong indication that the filing was deliberate rather than accidental.
3. Was there a genuine commercial reason for filing the mark?
The proprietor argued that he had a long-standing interest in online business, digital marketing and technology projects.
However, the Board noted that he produced:
no business plan;
no evidence of project development;
no preparations for launch;
no proof of actual use; and
no convincing explanation for choosing the name "Truth Social".
The Board held that once substantial indications of bad faith had been established, it was for the proprietor to provide a credible commercial explanation. He failed to do so.
4. What significance did the later correspondence have?
After registration, the proprietor contacted Trump's company asserting trade mark rights and later proposed transferring the mark in return for "adequate compensation". He also referred to avoiding public proceedings in the run-up to US elections.
The Board stressed that:
offering to sell a trade mark is not automatically bad faith; but
in the wider context of this case, the correspondence helped reveal the proprietor's true intentions.
The letters were treated as evidence supporting the conclusion that the filing was intended to obtain leverage and monetary payment, rather than to support a genuine business venture.
Decision
The Board upheld the invalidity decision and found that the trade mark had been filed in bad faith under Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR. The appeal was dismissed and the proprietor was ordered to pay costs.
Key Takeaways
1. Massive publicity can establish knowledge
A trade mark applicant cannot easily claim ignorance where a sign has received extensive international media coverage shortly before filing. Public notoriety can support an inference that the applicant knew of another party's use.
2. Timing matters
Filing an identical trade mark immediately after a widely publicised launch announcement is a significant indicator of bad faith, particularly where there is no credible alternative explanation.
3. A proprietor should be able to explain its commercial logic
Where bad faith is alleged, evidence of business plans, development work, investment, marketing activity or intended use can be critical. Mere assertions are unlikely to be enough.
4. Later conduct can illuminate earlier intentions
Although bad faith is assessed at the filing date, later actions such as demands for payment or attempts to exploit the registration may help reveal the applicant's original motives.
5. Earlier rights outside the EU can still be relevant
The Board confirmed that use and trade mark filings outside the EU, particularly where they are well known and heavily publicised, may be taken into account when assessing bad faith.
Practical significance
This decision is a strong reminder that the EU trade mark system's "first-to-file" principle does not protect opportunistic filings. Where the evidence shows that an applicant sought to take advantage of another party's emerging brand, especially one that has already attracted substantial publicity, the registration may be invalidated for bad faith even if the other party had not yet secured equivalent EU trade mark rights.
Read the Judgment here: https://euipo.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/018584534/download/CLW/APL/2026/EN/20261019_R2260_2025-4.pdf?app=caselaw&casenum=R2260/2025-4&trTypeDoc=NA
