I’ve the identical identify as BBC icon… however I can not get a passport as officers say it is ‘frivolous’

A mother who raised thousands of pounds for charity by changing her name is pleading with Home Office officials to finally grant her a passport after 16 years – having deemed her new name too ‘frivolous’ and potentially in breach of copyright.

Eileen De Bont, 53, from north Wales, legally became Pudsey Bear – the name of Children In Need‘s beloved teddy mascot – after running an eBay auction to raise money for the national charity in 2009.

Having provided a list of 50 options, the good Samaritan pledged to change her name to the one chosen by the highest bidder – with the UK Deed Poll Service eventually winning the auction with a bid of £4,000.

She has been known as Pudsey Bear since that day, with her two daughters still lovingly calling her ‘Mama Bear’ nearly two decades on.

All her bank details, utility bills and medical records are in the name of the Children In Need mascot. 

Even her tarot reading business – called Northern Light Tarot, which has 32,000 subscribers on YouTube – is listed on Companies House under Mrs Pudsey Bear.

But despite the swathes of businesses and government organisations that accept Mrs Bear’s new identity, the Home Office refused to grant her a passport in 2009 after deeming her name change as ‘frivolous’.

And when she sought advice on the matter again this month, Mrs Bear was told her application could fail again because it potentially breaches copyright laws.

She was advised to get permission from the copyright owner, the BBC, before proceeding further. 

But the matter is a cause of real concern for Mrs Bear, who had to give up driving for medical reasons and said she has been left without any valid form of photographic ID.

Not only can she not travel abroad under her new name, but she claims her online tarot business has been impacted and she is unable to vote. 

After 16 years of ‘bearing’ her new name, Mrs Bear believes officials should grant her a passport, but is concerned they will fail her application again.

‘They just won’t let me be who I am,’ she said forlornly.

Speaking to MailOnline about her dilemma, she said: ‘All my bills, my bank details, the GP, my local health trust. 

‘Everywhere else has accepted my new name – everywhere except the Passport Office. 

‘When I applied back in 2009, their reasoning was that it was a frivolous name and therefore the answer was no. 

‘They would only make a note on the back page of the passport that I was also known as Pudsey Bear, but right next to my photograph it had my previous name. 

‘I just had to accept that in the end, but that passport has now expired and I need a passport that aligns with my official name.

‘This is an issue now affecting my online business, because to sell services digitally and use streaming platforms you need to provide an in-date and valid form of photo ID – and I don’t have one.

‘I thought that after 16 years the passport agency can hardly call my name “frivolous”. 

‘It is my name, and has been for 16 years, so I would like it on the front page of my passport next to my photograph.’

Mrs Bear added that her most recent response asking for advice from passport officials suggests her application could be turned down again – but this time for copyright and trademark reasons. 

‘I feel like they are making me jump through so many hoops,’ she said. ‘I know of cases where they’ve done U-turns for others with names that were copyrighted so why won’t they do the same for me? 

‘Ultimately I’m not using the name to present myself as anything to do with the charity or for financial gain. 

‘It’s simply my name, and it has been for 16 years, because I wanted to raise money for charity. That’s the beginning and the end of it.

‘If anything, I am now losing money by being called Pudsey Bear, because I haven’t been able to provide photographic ID so my products for sale in America have been taken offline. I’m also not being sent my earnings from Youtube.’

Mrs Bear has been asked before why she does not simply change her name back to her birth name, but she is adamant that her new identity is here to stay.

‘I don’t see the need to have to change my name back,’ she said. ‘I have been Pudsey now for 16 years and I like my name. 

‘It’s a sweet name and represents something really quite wonderful.

‘It cheers up a lot of people’s days when I tell them my name and is a reminder that life can be fun!’ 

A spokesperson for the UK Deed Poll Service said it was aware of instances in which names were turned down over trademark and copyright issues – but added that the Passport Office was ‘inconsistent’ in its decisions.

They said: ‘Under trademark law, simply having a name – even if it matches a registered trademark – does not automatically mean you are infringing on that trademark. 

 

‘Trademark law is designed to prevent businesses from using names in a way that causes confusion in the marketplace or unfairly benefits from an established brand. 

‘However, an individual using a name on a passport is not “trading” or conducting commercial activities, so there is no actual trademark violation.

‘The Passport Office’s approach is inconsistent. Since there’s no structured way to check all trademarks, decisions seem to be made based on what Passport Office officials happen to recognise rather than a clear legal rule. 

‘This leads to arbitrary outcomes, where some trademarked names are rejected while others – like William Morrison or Paul Smith – are accepted.

‘Ultimately, the Passport Office is applying trademark law in a way that isn’t legally necessary or consistent, leading to avoidable refusals like Mrs Pudsey Bear’s case.’

A spokesperson for the Home Office confirmed this week that it would welcome a new application from Mrs Bear, adding: ‘All passport applications are considered on their individual merits and assessed in line with official guidance.’

MailOnline has previously reported on issues raised by unusual names on passport applications. 

In September, Home Office officials threw out an application for the son of a solider and massive Star Wars fan, who named his child Loki Skywalker Mowbray.

The child, who was born on May 4, known as ‘Star Wars Day’ to enthusiasts, was denied a passport ‘for copyright issues’.

His father, Christian Mowbray, 48, who serves with the Corps of Royal Engineers at Rock Barracks near Woodbridge, Suffolk, was initially told by the Home Office to either change his son’s name or get permission from the copyright owner, Disney.

Mr Mowbray and his wife Becky, a former soldier, had been looking forward to a holiday in the Dominican Republic before the furore.

It would mark the family’s first time away since 2014 due to their demanding work schedules and Becky’s struggles with Complex PTSD.

Skywalker is the family name of characters at the heart of the Star Wars film franchise, which is owned by Disney.

Mr Mowbray said at the time: ‘We were not aware that this could be a potential issue.

‘We understand that Loki’s middle name is copyrighted, but we have no intention of using it for personal gain.

‘I understand the Home Office’s position and reasoning, but I believe they need to recognise that modern names are evolving.

‘I can understand if an adult changes their name for a ‘stunt’, but this is not the case for a child from birth.

‘It’s caused significant stress for the entire family as we may have to cancel our holiday and we would have been deeply saddened if we had to change our son’s name.’

When Loki was born on May 4, his parents felt it would be a fitting tribute to give him a middle name related to the franchise which has been a big part of Mr Mowbray’s life since childhood.

In an email to the family detailing the refusal, the Home Office said Loki’s name contained a name ‘which relates to a trademark or copyright’ and it therefore would not issue a passport.

According to guidelines from His Majesty’s Passport Office, there are a few reasons why a passport application can be thrown out. 

These include customers applying for a passport with a nickname rather than using the same name they would use for all official purposes.

The name on a customer’s passport application must also match the name on their UK or overseas supporting documents, such as their birth certificate.

As in the case of the Mowbray family, some names cannot be accepted if they cause offence, contain symbols, or breach trademark or copyright laws.

The Passport Office added that names containing symbols can cause technical issues when being processed through a computer.

In regards to copyright, the official guidelines state: ‘An application using an existing trade or commercial name will require the applicant to provide written confirmation from the owner of that trademark or copyright that they consent to the use of that name or confirmation that the name in the public domain is not subject to any copyright or trademark restrictions.’

It adds: ‘Where an application falls within this category, the passport should be refused on the grounds that: ‘The passport application submitted by you…does not meet the criteria published by HM Passport Office on the use of names. 

‘Your application contains a name, which may relate to a trademark or copyright and you have failed to provide confirmation that the owner of that trademark or copyright is content for you to make use of the proposed name or confirmation from the person or organisation using that name, which is in the public domain, it is not subject to any copyright or trademark provisions.’

But after news of the row broke, Home Office officials did a U-turn and issued a passport.

Aside from name issues, small paper tears and ink stains are among the petty hindrances which have seen families turned back at airport check-ins.

Last May, mother-of-one Charlotte Estlick found her package holiday to Dalaman in Turkey was in jeopardy after officials stopped her husband Myk, 28, from flying due to his passport being lightly marked with blue ink after appearing to have got wet.

Another traveller who found himself frustrated was 31-year-old Nathan Barnes, from Norwich, who was told he could not fly because his passport was more than 10 years old – despite not having expired yet.

He was travelling with his fiancé to visit family in Limoge, France, but fell foul of a new rule brought in since Britain left the EU.

Meanwhile, another devastated family spent £7,000 on a luxury family holiday to Thailand only to be rejected at the airport when check-in staff discovered a tiny tear in a passport.

Oldham childminder Suzanne Senior’s daughter Bethany had a millimetre-long tear in her passport, spotted by Qatar Airways staff also at Manchester Airport.

And a Ryanair passenger was unable to board a flight for a £1,000 dream holiday because of a tiny tear in his passport, it was reported last January.

Jake Burton, 19, from Mansfield, was due to go on his first-ever flight to Benidorm with his parents to celebrate the New Year.

But the discount airline told him he was unable to board after he failed the final check.