When Pingers walked into the room (or more accurately, onto the Trade Marks Register), examiners at IP Australia immediately blushed. “Surely this is slang for MDMA, how scandalous!”
But the Registrar wasn’t convinced. On 18 August 2025, the Delegate in Re Volstead Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 164 decided that although Pingers for spirits was in bad taste, it was not scandalous under s 42(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
📖 Full decision: Re Volstead Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 164 (AustLII)
Australia’s scandal track record: Refusals and Acceptances
In Australia, a trade mark must be refused if it “contains or consists of scandalous matter”. But what actually counts as “scandalous” has always been a moving target, shaped by shifting community standards. Once offensive religious words like Jesus or Hallelujah now pass without comment, while racially charged terms that once slipped through would never make it today.
The overall trend is that the bar for scandalousness is set quite high. Plenty of marks that are crude, cheeky or borderline offensive still make it through, with Examiners and Delegates reserving refusals for the truly shocking.
Notable refusals:
- KUNT (clothing) – [2007] ATMO 34: too close to the most offensive four-letter word; found scandalous.
- absofuckinglutely / absofcukinglutely (clothing) – [2010] ATMO 99: profanity obvious even with altered spelling; still scandalous.
Notable acceptances:
- LOOK GOOD. FEEL GOOD. ROOT GOOD. (cosmetics) – [2003] ATMO 10: risqué wordplay but not scandalous.
- POMMIEBASHER (clothing) – [2011] ATMO 45: colourful, colloquial language; not scandalous.
- ZRO FUX (clothing) – [2024] ATMO 103: in poor taste perhaps, but not so offensive as to be scandalous.
Together, these decisions show the Australian approach is pragmatic and often playful: brands can push the envelope with cheeky or edgy language, but a line is drawn where a mark would cause genuine outrage rather than just a raised eyebrow.
These decisions show that the Australian system (and the businesses behind these brands) can see the playful side of things. Where some jurisdictions might be scandalised, Australian practice often embraces a wink, provided the joke doesn’t tip over into genuine offence.
Why Pingers passed the pub test
The Delegate split Australians into:
- The blissfully unaware: for them, “pinger” is just a quirky or sonic brand.
- The in-the-know crowd: parents, police, teachers, health workers, aware of the drug slang.
Even the second group, the Delegate concluded, would not be scandalised. Offended? Perhaps. Outraged? No.
United States
Across the Atlantic, the U.S. has taken a very strong position in relation to this topic. The Supreme Court has anchored trade mark law firmly in First Amendment principles, ruling that it cannot be used as a tool of taste-policing.
Offensive, disparaging, or scandalous terms are still treated as protected expression. In practice, this means trade mark registration cannot be denied simply because the words might shock, offend, or upset. The U.S. is very much at the forefront of the “free speech” approach thus pushing the boundaries further than most other jurisdictions.
- Matal v Tam, 582 U.S. 218; 137 S Ct 1744 (2017) – struck down the “disparagement” bar, allowing THE SLANTS.
- Iancu v Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388; 139 S Ct 2294 (2019) – struck down the “immoral or scandalous” bar, clearing the way for FUCT.
Post-Brunetti, almost anything goes in the U.S. Free speech under the First Amendment trumps any attempt at moral gatekeeping by the USPTO.
United Kingdom
The UK Trade Marks Act 1994, s 3(3)(a) excludes marks “contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality.” Unlike Australia, the UK applies this provision conservatively, often refusing cheeky or humorous marks if they risk offending a significant section of the public.
Examples include:
- “FOOK” (clothing) – refused as phonetically offensive and too close to the F-word.
- “Tiny Penis” (clothing) – refused as grossly offensive and contrary to morality.
- Marijuana leaf + “ADDICTED” (clothing, retail , design, financial services) – invalidated for glorifying illegal drug-taking; contrary to public policy and accepted principles of morality.
Where Australia sits
- Not as permissive as the U.S.
- Not as conservative as the U.K.
- A pragmatic middle ground: unless a mark genuinely scandalises a broad slice of the public, it will likely be allowed.
Better Pingers than prickly examiners
A trade mark isn’t just a name, it’s your brand’s personality strutting out into the world. And as Pingers proves, you can be cheeky, a little daring, and still keep the lawyers smiling.
But remember: what gets a grin in Melbourne might get a grimace in London.
Different offices, different thresholds. Push it too far and you’re not edgy, you’re off the register. (Think less “Ketamine Kombucha” wellness chic, more actual Kombucha you can still sell at Woolies.)
The trick is knowing where sassy stops and scandalous starts. In today’s digital arena, a bold brand can trend by breakfast; but one wrong step and you’re the meme, not the moment. Socials love a stir… but they also never forget.
So the lesson? Be bold. Be unforgettable. But don’t be the cautionary tale. The best marks spark chatter without tipping into controversy, and they protect your story for the long haul.
After all, better a registered mark than a hangover at IP Australia (or worse having your cheeky brand politely shown the door at the UKIPO).
Bold ideas build buzz; registered ones build empires. Cheers to that! 🍸
