The Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has upheld the invalidation of the EU trademark "Truth Social." The trademark was registered by a Luxembourg-based entrepreneur unrelated to Donald Trump's social media platform. The decision was based on the applicant's bad faith. The dispute lasted several years and included at least one unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the mark. This is a good illustration of the phenomenon known as trademark squatting, whereby someone else's trademark, often newly announced, is registered in order to block or sell the owner's rights. A similar race for newly announced trademarks was recently observed in Poland with the name "Port Polska.".
Why did Trump's company have to fight for its own name?
The source of the problem is the priority filing rule, which applies both in the European Union and in Poland. Trademark protection is generally granted to the first to file a trademark, not to the first to announce the name or use it in another market. The announcement of the platform in the US and the US filing did not grant Trump's company exclusive rights in the EU.
This has significant procedural consequences. Without prior EU rights, the company could not file an opposition against the Luxembourg application, as the opposition at the EUIPO is based on prior rights of third parties. It also could not rely on reputation or rights of use in Europe, as the platform was not yet operational at the time of filing. The remaining option was to file an invalidation application based on the applicant's bad faith (Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001). Such an application can be filed by anyone and is not subject to a time limit, but the applicant bears the burden of proving bad faith.
What is bad faith?
Neither EU nor Polish law defines bad faith. It is an autonomous concept of EU law that should be interpreted uniformly in all Member States. In Poland, bad faith constitutes an absolute obstacle to registration (Article 129¹, paragraph 1, point 6 of the Industrial Property Law Act) and grounds for invalidation of a protection right (Article 164 in conjunction with Article 129¹, paragraph 1, point 6 of that Act). Interpretative guidance stems from the following case law:
- Lindt (C-529/07, judgment of 11 June 2009): Bad faith is assessed taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case as at the date of filing, in particular whether the applicant knew or should have known that a third party was using an identical or similar sign, whether he intended to prevent its further use and what degree of protection both signs are entitled to.
- Koton (C-104/18 P, judgment of 12 September 2019): Bad faith exists when relevant and consistent circumstances indicate that the applicant did not intend to compete fairly, but sought to harm the interests of third parties in a manner contrary to honest practices or to obtain exclusive rights for purposes other than those for which the trademark is intended. The applicant does not need to be the proprietor of the earlier mark, and a risk of confusion does not need to be demonstrated.
- Sky v. SkyKick (C-371/18, judgment of 29 January 2020): Applying for a trademark without any intention of using it for the goods and services applied for may constitute bad faith if the applicant intended to infringe the interests of third parties or to obtain exclusive rights for purposes other than those for which the trademark is intended.
- Neymar (T-795/17, judgment of the General Court of the EU of 14 May 2019): The General Court of the EU upheld the invalidation of the "NEYMAR" trademark, which had been filed without the footballer's consent. It found that the applicant must have been aware of the player's growing recognition and intended to exploit it. The fact that the applicant filed a trademark bearing the name of another famous footballer, Iker Casillas, on the same day also supported bad faith.
Bad faith is assessed as of the filing date. However, subsequent conduct by the applicant, such as an offer to resell the trademark, may confirm the intent behind the application.
"Port Polska", the Polish version of the problem
In Poland, a similar scenario unfolded with the new name for the Central Communication Port (CPK). The CPK company filed the trademarks "Port Polska" and "Port Polska 2032" with the Polish Patent Office on December 12, 2025, the day the name was announced. On the following days, on December 13 and 17, two private individuals filed trademarks with the same word element, including one as a business entity. One of them withdrew after learning of the CPK application, stating that they wanted to transfer the trademark to the company free of charge and protect it from being taken over by speculators.
How to protect your name from being taken over?
Both cases provide practical recommendations for entrepreneurs planning a new brand, product or rebranding:
- Submit your trademark before the name is announced: no later than the public announcement date. Until then, working names should remain confidential, and agencies and advisors should be bound by confidentiality agreements.
- Plan your territorial protection: an EU trademark with the EUIPO, a national trademark with the Polish Patent Office, and for markets outside the EU, an international application under the Madrid system. It's worth taking advantage of the 6-month convention priority period.
- Select a realistic list of goods and services: a list that is too broad, without the intention of using it, may expose the trademark to accusations of bad faith, and failure to use the trademark for 5 years may result in the expiration of the right.
- Secure domains and profile names: in parallel with trademark registration.
- Monitor applications: The watch service allows you to quickly detect suspicious applications. If you have prior rights, you can file an opposition within three months of the application's publication. Otherwise, third-party objections remain in the proceedings before the Polish Patent Office and a request for invalidation of the mark after its registration.
- Don't pay hastily: if the applicant proposes to resell the trademark, it is worth securing this correspondence and assessing the chances of the trademark being invalidated on the grounds of bad faith before entering into negotiations.
In summary, the "Truth Social" dispute demonstrates that EU law provides effective tools against speculative applications, but their use can be lengthy, expensive, and requires carefully gathered evidence. A much cheaper and more reliable solution is to file a trademark application before the name becomes public. The example of "Port Polska" demonstrates that a few days can determine whether the name owner will defend its right of priority or be forced to prove bad faith by a competitor.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of October 29, 2026.
