For our client EQOM/Easytoys, we submitted two brands a while ago: EASYBOYS and EASYGIRLS. First in the Benelux, and after the final registration in the Benelux, we submitted international trademark applications in amongst others the EU.
The products: sex toys. The registration for EASYBOYS went smoothly. However, for EASYGIRLS, we received a provisional refusal in the EU from the EUIPO because the brand would be contrary to the principles of morality.
The reasoning of the EUIPO: the public would interpret EASYGIRLS as follows: people who buy or use the sex toys in question are “easygirls,” which is another word for sluts.
The relevant part of the decision:
We found this a very strange decision, especially since EASYBOYS wa registered without any issues.
Every decision we disagree with ignites a fighting spirit to oppose it. But in this case, it was about the unequal treatment of men and women, a subject we are passionate about.
Initially, we thought that the examiner of the file personally considered women who use sex toys to be sluts, but that was not the case. The examiner actually wanted to protect women from such negative judgments from the public and therefore found that EASYGIRLS as a brand was not acceptable. So, out of protection for women and girls. The protection of children was also discussed, as a GIRL is, after all, a child, and it is inappropriate to associate children with sex. We naturally agree with that!
But, in our opinion, this is a narrow-minded and flawed reasoning, but the question is whether the word GIRL will necessarily be interpreted as “girl.” GIRL is also often used for adult women. Moreover, sex toys are sold through shielded web shops and stores so that children themselves will not come into contact with such products. We, of course, filed an extensive defence. Initially without success, unfortunately. But the feeling that this was not right remained, also with the client, so we decided to appeal the refusal decision once more.
In this, we stated, amongst others that the interpretation of the meaning of EASYGIRLS is merely an opinion and not a fact. And even if an EASYGIRL is understood as a promiscuous woman, it does not hurt anyone. We pointed out that the trademark EASYBOYS was registered without any issues. Even if the term “easyboys” does not exist in the same sense, that confirms the unequal treatment and judgment of the behaviour of men as opposed to women.
The fact that the trademark EASYBOYS is accepted, whereas EASYGIRLS is refused, enables this unfair treatment of women because they should not be promiscuous. This unequal treatment is contrary to the principles of morality in itself since it affects the equal rights of every human being and the right to be treated equally. There is no harm to others in being promiscuous, and “easygirls” do not affect society nor the principles of morality, as “easyboys” don’t either.
Following this, the EUIPO decided to accept the EASYGIRLS brand after all. Unfortunately, the EUIPO’s communication did not explain what was decisive, but on the other hand, we understand that such a government agency does not want to give an opinion on certain subjects that may be sensitive to the public.
Trademark offices usually do not explicitly express themselves on such matters. If there is an opportunity to argue that a brand may be descriptive, that ground is used to avoid sensitive discussions about what is and is not against public order and good morals. For us, this was the first refusal on the grounds of conflict with good morals, and we are pleased that the defence resulted in the acceptance of the EASYGIRLS brand.
