Bizarre names

[Ottavio Caruso]

Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

## QUOTE

A seven-year-old boy has been refused a British passport after the Home
Office deemed his name unacceptable for "copyright" reasons.
Listen to this article

When soldier Christian Mowbray, 48, of the Corps of Royal Engineers,
applied for a passport for his son ahead of a "much needed" family
holiday, it seemed like another simple box ticking exercise.

However, Mr Mowbray, who serves at Rock Barracks near Woodbridge,
Suffolk, was informed by the Home Office that his son's passport
application had been unsuccessful.

The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.

Mr Mowbray, a self-declared Star Wars enthusiast, welcomed the timing -
given the date is unofficially known as 'Star Wars Day'.

However, despite the reasoning and the name being legally registered and
on the seven-year-old's birth certificate, his application was thrown
out by Home Office officials over "copyright" infringements.

## UNQUOTE

A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms. What if a
government guidance ends up banning Mohamed, Paul or Jack?

Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!

In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.

To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

Assuming the report is actually true, I cannot see how either the child or the
Home Office could possibly be infringing a media franchise trademark by using
it as a name for a real person.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

The report also says the Home Office admits they made a mistake and
in the end did not refuse to issue the passport.

It is clearly not Home Office policy to refuse "trademarked" names,
because that would mean almost all names were disallowed. Charles,
Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, even Meghan, would all be blocked.
I would have to change my name. You would have to change your name.
Even Ottavio would have to change his name.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

The report also says the Home Office admits they made a mistake and
in the end did not refuse to issue the passport.
It is clearly not Home Office policy to refuse "trademarked" names,
because that would mean almost all names were disallowed. Charles,
Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, even Meghan, would all be blocked.
I would have to change my name. You would have to change your name.
Even Ottavio would have to change his name.

Trade marks are marks used in the course of trade. They are registered
in respect of the goods and/or services that they are to be used on. It
is common for similar trade marks to co-exist if they are used on
unrelated goods or services.

However, in the case of a trade mark which has acquired a reputation,
there can be broader protection for use **in the course of trade** on
unrelated goods or services. I suppose it might be claimed that Luke
Skywalker falls into that category.

Which begs the question: what goods or services is this seven-year-old
supposed to be using the Loki Skywalker mark on, **in the course of
trade** ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

The report also says the Home Office admits they made a mistake and
in the end did not refuse to issue the passport.
It is clearly not Home Office policy to refuse "trademarked" names,
because that would mean almost all names were disallowed. Charles,
Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, even Meghan, would all be blocked.
I would have to change my name. You would have to change your name.
Even Ottavio would have to change his name.

Trade marks are marks used in the course of trade. They are registered
in respect of the goods and/or services that they are to be used on. It
is common for similar trade marks to co-exist if they are used on
unrelated goods or services.
However, in the case of a trade mark which has acquired a reputation,
there can be broader protection for use **in the course of trade** on
unrelated goods or services. I suppose it might be claimed that Luke
Skywalker falls into that category.
Which begs the question: what goods or services is this seven-year-old
supposed to be using the Loki Skywalker mark on, **in the course of
trade** ?

Well that was part of my point. Apparently trademark category 31
includes "live mammals", but unless the father is intending to sell
his child in the course of a business then I don't really see how it
applies.

I guess the policy is to catch silly buggers playing silly games like
"officially changing their name" to "Ronald McDonald's Quality Burgers"
or whatever.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
Trade marks are marks used in the course of trade. They are registered
in respect of the goods and/or services that they are to be used on. It
is common for similar trade marks to co-exist if they are used on
unrelated goods or services.
However, in the case of a trade mark which has acquired a reputation,
there can be broader protection for use **in the course of trade** on
unrelated goods or services. I suppose it might be claimed that Luke
Skywalker falls into that category.
Which begs the question: what goods or services is this seven-year-old
supposed to be using the Loki Skywalker mark on, **in the course of
trade** ?

Well that was part of my point. Apparently trademark category 31
includes "live mammals", but unless the father is intending to sell
his child in the course of a business then I don't really see how it
applies.
I guess the policy is to catch silly buggers playing silly games like
"officially changing their name" to "Ronald McDonald's Quality Burgers"
or whatever.

Yes. But nobody seems to have explained that to the junior civil
servants who have to apply it in practice.

And while that just might have a trade mark implication, it's highly
unlikely to attract copyright protection.

Though there was a copyright case about copying short phrases a while
ago. Was it Meltwater, relating to a news service copying short phrases
from newspaper articles? I can't remember the final outcome, but I
don't see that it would protect a simple name such as Luke Skywalker.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
Trade marks are marks used in the course of trade. They are registered
in respect of the goods and/or services that they are to be used on. It
is common for similar trade marks to co-exist if they are used on
unrelated goods or services.
However, in the case of a trade mark which has acquired a reputation,
there can be broader protection for use **in the course of trade** on
unrelated goods or services. I suppose it might be claimed that Luke
Skywalker falls into that category.
Which begs the question: what goods or services is this seven-year-old
supposed to be using the Loki Skywalker mark on, **in the course of
trade** ?

Well that was part of my point. Apparently trademark category 31
includes "live mammals", but unless the father is intending to sell
his child in the course of a business then I don't really see how it
applies.
I guess the policy is to catch silly buggers playing silly games like
"officially changing their name" to "Ronald McDonald's Quality Burgers"
or whatever.

Yes. But nobody seems to have explained that to the junior civil
servants who have to apply it in practice.
And while that just might have a trade mark implication, it's highly
unlikely to attract copyright protection.
Though there was a copyright case about copying short phrases a while
ago. Was it Meltwater, relating to a news service copying short phrases
from newspaper articles? I can't remember the final outcome, but I
don't see that it would protect a simple name such as Luke Skywalker.

There was a case like that with that name. And that leads to paragraph
22 of Newspaper Agency Licensing & Others v PRCA & Others [2011] EWCA
Civ 890 [1] which says "newspaper headlines are capable of being
original literary works".

But this appears to be more along the lines of "headlines can in
principle be literary works" rather than "most headlines are literary
works". So today's Sun headline of "We're here for you" is probably not
copyrightable, nor today's Metro's "Phew!", nor indeed would I think
that i's "Carers set for pay rise under new Rayner law" is copyright
given it's just a recital of an existing fact. But apparently some
headlines might conceivably be copyrightable, even if I can't think
of any plausible examples right now! And unless the person's claimed
"name" on their passport application is very unlike what we would
usually think of as a "name", I still don't think it's copyrightable.

[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/890.html

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
Though there was a copyright case about copying short phrases a while
ago. Was it Meltwater, relating to a news service copying short phrases
from newspaper articles? I can't remember the final outcome, but I
don't see that it would protect a simple name such as Luke Skywalker.

There was a case like that with that name. And that leads to paragraph
22 of Newspaper Agency Licensing & Others v PRCA & Others [2011] EWCA
Civ 890 [1] which says "newspaper headlines are capable of being
original literary works".

Thank you, that is the Meltwater case I remembered. It eventually went
via the Supreme Court to the CJEU, but by that stage I think it was
limited just to the transient copies in the user's cache and on the
screen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_Consultants_Association_L
td_v_Newspaper_Licensing_Agency_Ltd#cite_ref-judgment_1-4

Post by Jon Ribbens
But this appears to be more along the lines of "headlines can in
principle be literary works" rather than "most headlines are literary
works".

Agreed.

Post by Jon Ribbens
So today's Sun headline of "We're here for you" is probably not
copyrightable, nor today's Metro's "Phew!", nor indeed would I think
that i's "Carers set for pay rise under new Rayner law" is copyright
given it's just a recital of an existing fact.

I wouldn't be so sure, particularly about the latter. Copyright doesn't
protect the underlying ideas, but does protect the expression of those
ideas, if original to the author. I'm pretty sure other authors would
express the same idea in different words if they hadn't seen them in the
i first. E.g. "Deputy PM proposes more money for care home workers".

Post by Jon Ribbens
But apparently some
headlines might conceivably be copyrightable, even if I can't think
of any plausible examples right now! And unless the person's claimed
"name" on their passport application is very unlike what we would
usually think of as a "name", I still don't think it's copyrightable.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/890.html

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
Though there was a copyright case about copying short phrases a while
ago. Was it Meltwater, relating to a news service copying short phrases
from newspaper articles? I can't remember the final outcome, but I
don't see that it would protect a simple name such as Luke Skywalker.

There was a case like that with that name. And that leads to paragraph
22 of Newspaper Agency Licensing & Others v PRCA & Others [2011] EWCA
Civ 890 [1] which says "newspaper headlines are capable of being
original literary works".

Thank you, that is the Meltwater case I remembered. It eventually went
via the Supreme Court to the CJEU, but by that stage I think it was
limited just to the transient copies in the user's cache and on the
screen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_Consultants_Association_L
td_v_Newspaper_Licensing_Agency_Ltd#cite_ref-judgment_1-4

Post by Jon Ribbens
But this appears to be more along the lines of "headlines can in
principle be literary works" rather than "most headlines are literary
works".

Agreed.

Post by Jon Ribbens
So today's Sun headline of "We're here for you" is probably not
copyrightable, nor today's Metro's "Phew!", nor indeed would I think
that i's "Carers set for pay rise under new Rayner law" is copyright
given it's just a recital of an existing fact.

I wouldn't be so sure, particularly about the latter. Copyright doesn't
protect the underlying ideas, but does protect the expression of those
ideas, if original to the author. I'm pretty sure other authors would
express the same idea in different words if they hadn't seen them in the
i first. E.g. "Deputy PM proposes more money for care home workers".

Sure, they *could*. But ask twenty headline writers to independently
write a headline for the same story and I expect you'd get a fair amount
of duplication. And you couldn't then use copyright to prevent everyone
else in the world from ever writing about that story again.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

The report also says the Home Office admits they made a mistake and
in the end did not refuse to issue the passport.

It generally takes massive adverse publicity and a media storm before
that happens. It helps a lot to have hard evidence of their mistake.

Post by Jon Ribbens
It is clearly not Home Office policy to refuse "trademarked" names,
because that would mean almost all names were disallowed. Charles,
Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, even Meghan, would all be blocked.
I would have to change my name. You would have to change your name.
Even Ottavio would have to change his name.

Japan has strict rules on naming children. You cannot name them "Akuma"
(Demon) for instance. There was a legal fight about it when I was there.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-15-mn-12064-story.html

Naming children with strange fictional names from TV series or movies
goes back a long way... a few were around back in the 60's & 70's.

Before aggressive copyright lawyers became quite so virulent.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:33:32 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/

As usual, the press confuse copyright with trade marks.
To be fair, the Home Office quote in the linked report refers to
"trademark or copyright".

The report also says the Home Office admits they made a mistake and
in the end did not refuse to issue the passport.

It generally takes massive adverse publicity and a media storm before
that happens. It helps a lot to have hard evidence of their mistake.

Post by Jon Ribbens
It is clearly not Home Office policy to refuse "trademarked" names,
because that would mean almost all names were disallowed. Charles,
Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, even Meghan, would all be blocked.
I would have to change my name. You would have to change your name.
Even Ottavio would have to change his name.

Japan has strict rules on naming children. You cannot name them "Akuma"
(Demon) for instance. There was a legal fight about it when I was there.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-15-mn-12064-story.html
Naming children with strange fictional names from TV series or movies
goes back a long way... a few were around back in the 60's & 70's.
Before aggressive copyright lawyers became quite so virulent.

Some forenames that are perfectly normal in English today were made up
by authors of C.16--19 literature. ("Made up" here includes
repurposing some Greek or Latin words that had not previously been
used as names.)

<https://interestingliterature.com/2015/10/10-first-names-that-have-their-origins-in-literature/>

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/
## QUOTE

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
## UNQUOTE
A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms.

I think this story is extremely suspect. Firstly, copyright simply
doesn't apply to so short a "work" as a 4- or 9-character name, and
secondly even if it did, the names "Loki" and "Skywalker" pre-date
the concept of copyright by (many) hundreds of years, and thirdly
I severely doubt there is anyone at HM Passport Office going around
checking names for "copyright".

Post by Ottavio Caruso
What if a government guidance ends up banning Mohamed, Paul or Jack?

What if, eh?

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

That is certainly false. Some European (and further afield) countries
do restrict parents' choice of baby names (e.g. famously Iceland, which
has a list of a few thousand names from which you are obliged to choose)
but most do not, and even of those that do, not all would reject the
not-obviously-ridiculous names "Loki" or "Skywalker".

(Interestingly, in recent years Iceland changed their rules so that
the two separate male and female lists are no longer segregated, and
also added the new non-binary suffix "-bur" to go with the previous
options of "-son" or "-dóttir".)

[Simon Parker]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/
## QUOTE

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
## UNQUOTE
A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms.

I think this story is extremely suspect. Firstly, copyright simply
doesn't apply to so short a "work" as a 4- or 9-character name, and
secondly even if it did, the names "Loki" and "Skywalker" pre-date
the concept of copyright by (many) hundreds of years, and thirdly
I severely doubt there is anyone at HM Passport Office going around
checking names for "copyright".

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement. Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

However, the rules were not correctly applied in this (and similar)
instance(s) and the error was corrected once someone suitably senior at
HMPO intervened, (no doubt following the media outcry).

Regards

S.P.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-by-home-office-because-of-copyright/
## QUOTE

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.

...

Post by Ottavio Caruso
## UNQUOTE
A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms.

I think this story is extremely suspect. Firstly, copyright simply
doesn't apply to so short a "work" as a 4- or 9-character name, and
secondly even if it did, the names "Loki" and "Skywalker" pre-date
the concept of copyright by (many) hundreds of years, and thirdly
I severely doubt there is anyone at HM Passport Office going around
checking names for "copyright".

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement. Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

You mean they look at every application and explicitly say "right, this
name doesn't infringe copyright either, in common with every other name
we've ever checked, because it is impossible for something so short as a
name to infringe copyright"*?

Or is it more likely that they don't in fact have a "Department of
Impossible Things", no matter what some idiot lawyer may have dreamt
up in a policy document?


* Assuming the name isn't ridiculously long, in which case I would
expect them to have already rejected the application on the basis of
length before they got to the "check for things that can't happen"
stage.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement. Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

In answer to my specific question, MS Copilot said:

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

So... if Champagne Jones married Roland Perry, would she be "Babycham"?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine. You can
call anything else Champagne if you want to.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:39:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Yes and no.

Quote:

It took two decades of negotiations, but finally, in 2005,
the U.S. and the EU reached an agreement. In exchange for
easing trade restrictions on wine, the American government
agreed that California Champagne, Chablis, Sherry and a
half-dozen other 'semi-generic' names would no longer
appear on domestic wine labels – //that is unless a producer
was already using one of those names.//

https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne-legal/

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:39:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

[quoted text muted]

Yes and no.

AIUI It's an interesting side effect of the US not signing the treaty of
Versailles

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:06:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:39:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

[quoted text muted]

Yes and no.

AIUI It's an interesting side effect of the US not signing the treaty of
Versailles

It's more that the whole system of regulating wine labelling originates
in individual wine-producing countries. Originally, each had its own
separate rules. The EU has consolidated things, providing a
registration system to ensure that each country respects appellations
from other countries. But until the EU-US agreement noted in my
previous link, that had no effect in USA.

English law did give some legal protection to appellations before we
joined the Common Market, as a result of the Babycham case in the 1960s.
Producers in the Champagne region successfully sued the makers of
Babycham for 'passing off' when they called their product 'the genuine
champagne perry'. Passing off protects the pre-existing reputation in
the name, assuming there is one.

However, IIRC the Champagne producers failed in a corresponding case in
the USA, presumably because they couldn't prove that US consumers
recognised the same reputation of origin.

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:06:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:39:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

[quoted text muted]

Yes and no.

AIUI It's an interesting side effect of the US not signing the treaty of
Versailles

Here is some history:

https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/01/geographical-indications-and-
versailles.html

USA was a signatory of the Versailles treaty.

Apparently, however, although stemming from Versailles, international
recognition of geographical indications for wines and spirits was only
taken up by France and Portugal (and forced upon Germany).

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Monolinguals! "Champagne" means "countryside" in French, but, of course,
if it's foreign, it's devious!

[BrritSki]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Monolinguals! "Champagne" means "countryside" in French, but, of course,
if it's foreign, it's devious!

Not with the h in it doesn't. The word you are thinking of is campagne,
like campagna in your language.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Monolinguals! "Champagne" means "countryside" in French, but, of
course, if it's foreign, it's devious!

Not with the h in it doesn't. The word you are thinking of is campagne,
like campagna in your language.

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Champagne

"Du latin Campania, campania : attesté en ancien français (XIe siècle)
sous la forme canpayne dans les gloses de Rachi puis champaine (« grande
étendue de pays plat »), (XIIe siècle) champaigne forme demeurée vivante
dans les dialectes nordiques du français et correspondant à campagne
emprunté au picard. Doublet de Campanie."

You are right in saying it sounds like "campagna" because "campagna",
"campagne" and "champagne" all come from Latin "Campania".

Having said that, I am aware that there are a few girls called
"Chardonnay". What do we do with them? Passport or not?

What if I call my child "Grigio" or "Brunello"?

[BrritSki]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by BrritSki

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Monolinguals! "Champagne" means "countryside" in French, but, of
course, if it's foreign, it's devious!

Not with the h in it doesn't. The word you are thinking of is
campagne, like campagna in your language.

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Champagne
"Du latin Campania, campania : attesté en ancien français (XIe siècle)
sous la forme canpayne dans les gloses de Rachi puis champaine (« grande
étendue de pays plat »), (XIIe siècle) champaigne forme demeurée vivante
dans les dialectes nordiques du français et correspondant à campagne
emprunté au picard. Doublet de Campanie."

Ancient french or dialect. Not current french as allowed by the Academie.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
You are right in saying it sounds like "campagna" because "campagna",
"campagne" and "champagne" all come from Latin "Campania".

Yes I know.

[JNugent]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine.

Not in the US I believe ....

Monolinguals! "Champagne" means "countryside" in French, but, of course,
if it's foreign, it's devious!

It IS used as an adjective more or less in the way you suggest, but
"Champagne" is also the actual name of a region of NE France. And that
latter point is of some importance to the producers of French sparkling
wine(s).

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine. You can
call anything else Champagne if you want to.

Yeah... that wasn't the central point in my contrived attempt at levity!

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine. You can
call anything else Champagne if you want to.

I'm sure I've seen it used as a paint colour.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to Britney
Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine. You can
call anything else Champagne if you want to.

I'm sure I've seen it used as a paint colour.

I've heard of people bathing in champagne, but not painting their walls
with it.

(Bubbles are a bad thing when I'm wallpapering.)

[JNugent]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO
policy is to check each and every passport application and renewal

for both copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is
there an "anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright"
but all front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to
Britney Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

"Champagne" is only a protected appellation in the realm of wine. You
can call anything else Champagne if you want to.

I'm sure I've seen it used as a paint colour.

I've heard of people bathing in champagne, but not painting their walls
with it.
(Bubbles are a bad thing when I'm wallpapering.)

Ludwig, a famous brand of drums - used to have an available finish
called "Champagne Sparkle".

<Loading Image...>

Safe for work.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to
Britney Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

For Champagne Charlie is my name, Champagne Charlie is my name
Good for any game at night, my boys, good for any game at night, my boys,
Champagne Charlie is my name, Champagne Charlie is my name
Good for any game at night, boys, wholl come and join me in a spree.

Post by JNugent
So... if Champagne Jones married Roland Perry, would she be "Babycham"?

[Jeff]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Simon Parker
As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.  Meaning not only is there an
"anyone" at HMPO "going around checking names for copyright" but all
front-line staff must do so as part of the application process.

So if Britney Spears married Bryan Ferry and changed her name to
Britney Ferry, would they deny her a passport?

"Yes, "Champagne" is occasionally used as a female given name. While
it's not a common name, it has a unique and sophisticated charm, often
associated with celebration, luxury, and joy due to its connection to
the French region famous for its sparkling wine."

http://youtu.be/EXK_FZksCos

A rather mangled version of the original!!!

A nickname with with entirely different conations to "sophisticated charm".

Jeff

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Simon Parker

[quoted text muted]

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.

In the name of all that's holy, why ?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Simon Parker

[quoted text muted]

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.

In the name of all that's holy, why ?

As others have observed, it really only makes sense to look at blatant abuse
and adult changes of names. You're hardly going to name a baby so that it can
unfairly pass itself off as a well-known firm in 18 years time!

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Simon Parker

[quoted text muted]

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy
is to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.

In the name of all that's holy, why ?

As others have observed, it really only makes sense to look at blatant
abuse and adult changes of names. You're hardly going to name a baby so
that it can unfairly pass itself off as a well-known firm in 18 years
time!

Well that then leads to an Alice in wonderland situation where policing
of registered names is out of step with policing of passport names and an
individual - lawfully registered - is no longer able to possess a
passport in their birth name.

This is straying into corporate ownership of the individual. I wonder how
it stacks up under the ECHR ? Maybe it's the reason the Tories are now
committed to scrapping the UKs membership ? So their paymasters can take
control of peoples names ?

Will we end up like apartheid South Africa where some people didn't
exist ?

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Simon Parker

[quoted text muted]

As referenced in a parallel post to the thread, official HMPO policy is
to check each and every passport application and renewal for both
copyright and trademark infringement.

In the name of all that's holy, why ?

As others have observed, it really only makes sense to look at blatant abuse
and adult changes of names. You're hardly going to name a baby so that it can
unfairly pass itself off as a well-known firm in 18 years time!

It seems completely unfair to punish people (by refusing to issue
their passports) for unfortunate choices made by their parents,
especially since there seems to be no system in place at birth
registration for alerting people about names that may cause trouble
later.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

That is certainly false. Some European (and further afield) countries
do restrict parents' choice of baby names (e.g. famously Iceland, which
has a list of a few thousand names from which you are obliged to choose)
but most do not, and even of those that do, not all would reject the
not-obviously-ridiculous names "Loki" or "Skywalker".

Depends on what we regard as "ridiculous". I had a colleague whose
parents, Mr and Mrs Church, named him Norman.

In the USA there's the infamous daughters of a Texas Governor: Ura and
Ima Hogg. Although the first probably an urban legend.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

That is certainly false. Some European (and further afield) countries
do restrict parents' choice of baby names (e.g. famously Iceland, which
has a list of a few thousand names from which you are obliged to choose)
but most do not, and even of those that do, not all would reject the
not-obviously-ridiculous names "Loki" or "Skywalker".

Depends on what we regard as "ridiculous". I had a colleague whose parents, Mr and Mrs
Church, named him Norman.
In the USA there's the infamous daughters of a Texas Governor: Ura and Ima Hogg.
Although the first probably an urban legend.

Two soldiers

Major-General John Pine Coffin (1778 - 1830)

Colonel Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin, DSO & Bar, MC (1908 - 1974)

While Apparently in 1892 there were 9 Pine Coffin families living in Devon

So at one stage there was presumably a family called Pine - O.K so far. And
another family called Coffin; which you might have thought was already bad
enough. But then when two of them decided to get married.......


bb



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pine_Coffin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pine-Coffin
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=pine%20coffin&srsltid=AfmBOorSPZXZqd3s-7ZUWA2aCdin9yJn9R_v5P4m-DsqxB2resUXOYAF

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

That is certainly false. Some European (and further afield) countries
do restrict parents' choice of baby names (e.g. famously Iceland, which
has a list of a few thousand names from which you are obliged to choose)
but most do not, and even of those that do, not all would reject the
not-obviously-ridiculous names "Loki" or "Skywalker".

Depends on what we regard as "ridiculous". I had a colleague whose parents, Mr and Mrs
Church, named him Norman.
In the USA there's the infamous daughters of a Texas Governor: Ura and Ima Hogg.
Although the first probably an urban legend.

Two soldiers
Major-General John Pine Coffin (1778 - 1830)
Colonel Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin, DSO & Bar, MC (1908 - 1974)
While Apparently in 1892 there were 9 Pine Coffin families living in Devon
So at one stage there was presumably a family called Pine - O.K so far. And
another family called Coffin; which you might have thought was already bad
enough. But then when two of them decided to get married.......
bb

Sorry

Post by billy bookcase
From further down the Ancestry link

quote:

You've only scratched the surface of Pine Coffin family history

:unquote

But from the outside at least

Post by billy bookcase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pine_Coffin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pine-Coffin
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=pine%20coffin&srsltid=AfmBOorSPZXZqd3s-7ZUWA2aCdin9yJn9R_v5P4m-DsqxB2resUXOYAF

[Andy Burns]

Post by Ottavio Caruso
seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues

"the Home Office has now U-turned"

[Simon Parker]

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because of
'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-passport-
by-home-office-because-of-copyright/
## QUOTE
A seven-year-old boy has been refused a British passport after the Home
Office deemed his name unacceptable for "copyright" reasons.
Listen to this article
When soldier Christian Mowbray, 48, of the Corps of Royal Engineers,
applied for a passport for his son ahead of a "much needed" family
holiday, it seemed like another simple box ticking exercise.
However, Mr Mowbray, who serves at Rock Barracks near Woodbridge,
Suffolk, was informed by the Home Office that his son's passport
application had been unsuccessful.
The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.
Mr Mowbray, a self-declared Star Wars enthusiast, welcomed the timing -
given the date is unofficially known as 'Star Wars Day'.
However, despite the reasoning and the name being legally registered and
on the seven-year-old's birth certificate, his application was thrown
out by Home Office officials over "copyright" infringements.
## UNQUOTE
A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms. What if a
government guidance ends up banning Mohamed, Paul or Jack?
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

The Home Office have form in this regard. I had a memory of a similar
case from around a decade ago and a quick Google revealed that in 2014
Laura Elizabeth Matthews added "Skywalker" as a middle name by deed poll
and adopted the signature "L Skywalker Matthews".

When she applied for a passport renewal it was refused as the Home
Office "will not recognise a change to a name which is subject to
copyright or trademark". (BBC News report on the case at the time [^1])

Similarly, there was a case earlier this year ([^2]) in which a mother
had named her daughter Khaleesi, after the Game of Thrones character.

Eventually, as in the case you've referenced, after media coverage the
Home Office did issue the passport.

Believe it or not, (and it is clear that there is at least one poster in
the NG in the "Not" camp), the Home Office has actually issued guidance
to His Majesty's Passport Office staff on how to deal with questions
about customer name and photos that may be subject to copyright or
trademark legislation.

The publicly available summary [^3] of the advice says:

<quote>
HM Passport Office will not issue a passport in a name that may be
subject to a trademark or copyright restriction. You must ask the
customer to send in written evidence from the owner of the trademark or
copyright:

- that gives their consent to the use of the name
- confirms that the name is not subject to a copyright or trademark
restriction

If a customer cannot send in the evidence we have asked for, you must
refuse to authorise a passport using a trademark or copyrighted name.
<end quote>

The more detailed caseworker guidance notes [^4] cover the subject in
more detail and say:

<quote>
Names that breach trademark or copyright laws

It is unlikely that a customer will use a name in a passport to
advertise goods or services. If they do, we will not issue a passport
without the consent of the trademark or copyright owner. This is because
British passports are the property of the Crown and allowing a name that
breaches trademark or copyright laws, may damage its reputation.

If a name breaches trademark or copyright laws

We may find a customer’s name may breach trademark or copyright laws:

- before we issue a passport to them (for example, when they send a
first time or renewal passport application)

- after we have already issued them with a passport (for example, when
they send us their passport as part of another application)

If you, the examiner, believes a customer’s name may breach trademark or
copyright laws, you:

- may use the internet to check for a trademark name (for example,
GOV.UK (which will show trademark names registered in the UK))

- must ask the customer to provide evidence to show they can use the
name, if you have any doubts – the evidence must either:

- include permission from the trademark or copyright owner, allowing
the customer to use the name

- confirm the name is not subject to trademark or copyright restrictions

If you are satisfied the name does not breach trademark or copyright
laws (either by doing an internet search or from the evidence the
customer gave) you must:

1. Scan any evidence the customer gave you on to the system, if it's a
live application. If it’s not a live application, you must add a
passport note to explain what evidence you received and what it said.

2. Refer the application to a HEO.

3. Recommend they:

- accept the application, explaining the reasons why (if it’s a live
application)

- allow the customer to keep the passport, explaining the reasons why
(if it's not a live application)

4. Add a case note (or passport note, if it's not a live application) to
show all the actions and decisions you have taken, including your
reasons (see Names: name related case notes, system checks and warnings
for what you must include in the case note).

If you are satisfied the name may breach trademark or copyright laws
(for example, using the internet to search for a trademark name) or the
customer does not give you evidence, you must:

1. Refer the application to a HEO.

2. Recommend they:

- refuse the application, explaining the reasons why (if it is a live
application)

- withdraw the passport, explaining the reasons why (if it’s not a live
application)

3. Add a case note (or passport note, if it is not a live application)
to show all the actions and decisions you have taken, including your
reasons (see Names: name related case notes, system checks and warnings
for what you must include in the case note).
<end quote>

Note from the first paragraph: "It is unlikely that a customer will use
a name in a passport to advertise goods or services. *If they do*, we
will not issue a passport without the consent of the trademark or
copyright holder."

The section should only be invoked if the customer will be using their
name to advertise goods or services.

However, skill levels as HMPO are not what they used to be.

Sadly, as the above text details, prior to the application being
refused, the matter must first be referred to a Higher Executive Officer
(HEO).

Meaning there are at least two people involved with each case like this
that makes the news that (a) do not know the rules; (b) cannot read; and
(c) are unaware of previous instances where refusals have been
overturned once the rules are correctly applied.

As I say, skill levels at HMPO are not what they used to be.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-28559872
[^2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ng1xd06xwo
[^3]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-and-trademarks-caseworker-guidance/copyright-and-trademarks-accessible-version
[^4]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/names-names-that-cannot-be-used-in-passports/names-names-that-cannot-be-used-in-passports-accessible

[Norman Wells]

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Soldier's seven-year-old son refused passport by Home Office because
of 'copyright' issues over blockbuster name
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/soldiers-seven-year-old-son-refused-
passport- by-home-office-because-of-copyright/
## QUOTE
A seven-year-old boy has been refused a British passport after the
Home Office deemed his name unacceptable for "copyright" reasons.
Listen to this article
When soldier Christian Mowbray, 48, of the Corps of Royal Engineers,
applied for a passport for his son ahead of a "much needed" family
holiday, it seemed like another simple box ticking exercise.
However, Mr Mowbray, who serves at Rock Barracks near Woodbridge,
Suffolk, was informed by the Home Office that his son's passport
application had been unsuccessful.
The passport application was made using his son's full name - Loki
Skywalker Mowbray - who was born on May 4.
Mr Mowbray, a self-declared Star Wars enthusiast, welcomed the timing
- given the date is unofficially known as 'Star Wars Day'.
However, despite the reasoning and the name being legally registered
and on the seven-year-old's birth certificate, his application was
thrown out by Home Office officials over "copyright" infringements.
## UNQUOTE
A couple of issues. One is that refusing a passport over somebody's
name, however legal it is, can also open a can of worms. What if a
government guidance ends up banning Mohamed, Paul or Jack?
Second, how the hell is one allowed to give their children such a
ridiculous name? And then we mock the Yanks!
In any other West European country this wouldn't have been allowed.

The Home Office have form in this regard.  I had a memory of a similar
case from around a decade ago and a quick Google revealed that in 2014
Laura Elizabeth Matthews added "Skywalker" as a middle name by deed poll
and adopted the signature "L Skywalker Matthews".
When she applied for a passport renewal it was refused as the Home
Office "will not recognise a change to a name which is subject to
copyright or trademark".  (BBC News report on the case at the time [^1])
Similarly, there was a case earlier this year ([^2]) in which a mother
had named her daughter Khaleesi, after the Game of Thrones character.
Eventually, as in the case you've referenced, after media coverage the
Home Office did issue the passport.
Believe it or not, (and it is clear that there is at least one poster in
the NG in the "Not" camp), the Home Office has actually issued guidance
to His Majesty's Passport Office staff on how to deal with questions
about customer name and photos that may be subject to copyright or
trademark legislation.
<quote>
HM Passport Office will not issue a passport in a name that may be
subject to a trademark or copyright restriction. You must ask the
customer to send in written evidence from the owner of the trademark or
 - that gives their consent to the use of the name
 - confirms that the name is not subject to a copyright or trademark
restriction
If a customer cannot send in the evidence we have asked for, you must
refuse to authorise a passport using a trademark or copyrighted name.
<end quote>
The more detailed caseworker guidance notes [^4] cover the subject in
<quote>
Names that breach trademark or copyright laws
It is unlikely that a customer will use a name in a passport to
advertise goods or services. If they do, we will not issue a passport
without the consent of the trademark or copyright owner. This is because
British passports are the property of the Crown and allowing a name that
breaches trademark or copyright laws, may damage its reputation.
If a name breaches trademark or copyright laws
- before we issue a passport to them (for example, when they send a
first time or renewal passport application)
- after we have already issued them with a passport (for example, when
they send us their passport as part of another application)
If you, the examiner, believes a customer’s name may breach trademark or
- may use the internet to check for a trademark name (for example,
GOV.UK (which will show trademark names registered in the UK))
- must ask the customer to provide evidence to show they can use the
  - include permission from the trademark or copyright owner, allowing
the customer to use the name
  - confirm the name is not subject to trademark or copyright restrictions

Good luck next time you apply for a passport then. There are numerous
trade mark registrations of PARKER, including:

UK00002025600
UK00001165280
UK00001165281 and
UK00003191063.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Simon Parker
Note from the first paragraph: "It is unlikely that a customer will use
a name in a passport to advertise goods or services. *If they do*, we
will not issue a passport without the consent of the trademark or
copyright holder."
The section should only be invoked if the customer will be using their
name to advertise goods or services.
However, skill levels as HMPO are not what they used to be.
Sadly, as the above text details, prior to the application being
refused, the matter must first be referred to a Higher Executive Officer
(HEO).
Meaning there are at least two people involved with each case like this
that makes the news that (a) do not know the rules; (b) cannot read; and
(c) are unaware of previous instances where refusals have been
overturned once the rules are correctly applied.

They could also usefully liase with the Intellectual Property Office to
obtain guidance both on the extent of copyright (eg, on the question of
whether a single word can be subject to copyright at all) and the correct
spelling of "trade mark".

Mark