Recently, the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM), in its decision dated 26 February 2026, declared the trademark “La Mafia se sienta a la mesa” invalid on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy and accepted principles of morality. This decision is in line with that of the General Court of the EU (Case T-1/17), which had already invalidated the aforementioned trademark in 2018 for the same reasons.
This is not an isolated case: on 25 November 2024, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected the registration of the trademark “Maricón Perdido.” Turner Broadcasting System Europe Limited applied for registration for audiovisual products and entertainment services, arguing that the word had been reappropriated. The EUIPO Board confirmed that the term remained offensive to the general public and upheld the refusal of registration on the grounds that it was contrary to accepted principles of morality and public policy.
In contrast, in the United States, in the 2017 case of Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the registration of an offensive term, ruling that prohibiting it violated freedom of speech, thereby invalidating the provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit the registration of offensive trademarks.
In this regard, at the end of 2025, the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (UCL) at University College London published a report examining the legal issues raised by the reclaiming of offensive terms (slurs), such as “maricón” or “queer”.
Reclaiming consists of a word that has historically been considered offensive to a particular group no longer being regarded as such because the group itself begins to use the term with a different meaning, whether as a symbol of identity or empowerment. This process is not automatic, but rather a gradual evolution; it depends on the context, on who uses the term and to whom it is addressed. Indeed, there may even be disagreement within the same group.
