George Floyd is a political symbol, not a trademark

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died during an arrest after being suspected of using counterfeit money. A bystander recorded a video of the arrest, which revealed the excessive force used by the police, resulting in George Floyd’s death. This incident sparked widespread outrage, leading to police reform and global protests against racism.

In memory of George Floyd, his heirs established a foundation and an IP Holding company that filed trademark applications for the name GEORGE FLOYD intended for clothing and fundraising purposes, among others.

However, these trademark applications came up against obstacles in the European Union and were rejected for all the products and services it had been filed for.

What is interesting is the reasoning behind the European Trademarks Office's rejection of these applications. In their opinion, the name GEORGE FLOYD is instantly associated with the events of 2020, and has become a symbol of protest against racism, racial profiling and prejudice. This means that this name is perceived as a political statement and therefore does not fulfil the function of a trademark, which is to distinguish a company's products and services. For instance, a T-shirt bearing the words GEORGE FLOYD will be viewed as a statement rather than a trademark in use (a product associated with the foundation). Consequently, a name like this should remain available for use by anyone.

There is certainly some merit to this argument, especially considering the potential exploitation by third parties filing trademarks for their own benefit. But it is also possible to argue that the IP Holding has submitted an application because there is a legitimate interest in protecting George Floyd's legacy through trademark registration. The IP Holding has appealed against one of the decisions, and it is likely that more appeals will follow for the other rejections. It will be interesting to see what the appeal court makes of this matter.