For 16 years, Eileen De Bont, a 53-year-old mother from North Wales, has been navigating a complex and ongoing battle to secure a passport under her legal name—Pudsey Bear.
This name change, which began as part of a charitable effort, has led to a frustrating and prolonged series of issues with the Home Office, who have refused to issue her a passport because they deem her name too “frivolous” and potentially in breach of copyright laws.
How It All Began
Back in 2009, Eileen, eager to raise money for the Children In Need charity, legally changed her name to Pudsey Bear after running an auction on eBay.
She offered a list of 50 name options, promising to take the name chosen by the highest bidder.
The UK Deed Poll Service placed the winning bid of £4,000, and from that point onward, Eileen became Mrs. Pudsey Bear.
Since then, Eileen has embraced her new identity, even though her daughters still affectionately call her “Mama Bear.”
All of her official documents—bank accounts, utility bills, medical records—reflect her new name.
Even her tarot reading business, Northern Light Tarot, which boasts a popular YouTube channel with 32,000 subscribers, is listed under her new name.
The Passport Dilemma
Despite her extensive use of the name and the acceptance of it by various businesses and government entities, Eileen’s efforts to get a passport have been repeatedly blocked.
In 2009, when she first applied for one, the Passport Office rejected her application, stating that her name was “frivolous.”
Later, when Eileen attempted to renew her passport this year, she was once again told that her name could breach copyright laws because it is the same as the beloved mascot of the BBC’s Children In Need charity.
The advice from officials this time around was clear: she would need to seek permission from the BBC, the copyright owner, before moving forward with her application.
The Impact of Not Having a Passport
For Eileen, this issue isn’t just about paperwork—it’s about the real, tangible consequences that affect her daily life.
She had to stop driving for medical reasons and has been left without any valid form of photo identification.
Not having a passport means she can’t travel abroad, and her online business, where she offers tarot readings, has also been affected, as she is unable to provide the required identification for international transactions.
Eileen is also unable to vote, which has left her feeling further disconnected from her civic rights.
After 16 years of living as Pudsey Bear, she is frustrated that officials refuse to accept her legal name, especially when it is recognized elsewhere.
The Ongoing Struggle for Recognition
When speaking about her situation, Eileen expressed her disbelief that after so many years, her name is still being treated as “frivolous.” “It’s my name. It’s been my name for 16 years.
I just want it on the front page of my passport,” she said. Despite the hurdles she’s faced, Eileen has no intention of changing her name back.
“I don’t see the need to change my name. It represents something wonderful, and it brings joy to others.”
Eileen also pointed out the inconsistency in how the Passport Office handles name applications, noting that other people have successfully had trademarked names on their passports without issue.
“I’m not using the name to make money from the charity or claim to be the mascot. So why won’t they just accept it?”
Trademark and Copyright Laws: A Complicated Matter
A spokesperson for the UK Deed Poll Service explained that while names tied to trademarks can sometimes face complications, having a name that matches a trademark does not automatically violate copyright laws.
They emphasized that trademark law is meant to prevent confusion in the marketplace or unfair business practices, not to prevent individuals from choosing a name for personal use.
The spokesperson also pointed out that the Passport Office’s decision-making process seems inconsistent, with no clear structure for how to assess trademark-related issues.
For instance, some trademarked names are accepted, while others are rejected without a clear legal reason.
A Wider Trend: The Struggle with Unusual Names
Eileen’s case isn’t the only one involving the refusal of passports based on unusual names.
In another instance, the son of a soldier named Loki Skywalker Mowbray had his passport application denied due to the “Skywalker” portion of his name being tied to the Star Wars franchise, owned by Disney.
In both cases, the individuals were not using these names for commercial purposes, yet they were still asked to provide proof from copyright owners.
The Home Office has now confirmed that Eileen is welcome to submit a new application, which will be considered on its own merits, but the ongoing uncertainty leaves her wondering if her name will ever be fully accepted.
The Bigger Picture: Passport Rejections for Small Issues
While unusual names pose their own set of challenges, the Home Office has also been known to reject passport applications for seemingly minor issues.
Families have faced problems with passports that have small tears, stains, or even are slightly older than the new regulations allow, leading to significant disruption in their travel plans.
In one case, a mother had her family’s holiday plans thrown into jeopardy because her husband’s passport had a small ink stain.
In another, a young man was denied boarding for a holiday due to a passport that was just over 10 years old, despite being valid.
These frustrating experiences highlight the rigidness of the rules and the sometimes arbitrary way in which passport applications are handled, leaving many people facing unexpected hurdles.
Conclusion: The Need for Change
Eileen De Bont’s ongoing battle for recognition of her name sheds light on broader issues surrounding the inflexibility of the Home Office’s passport policies.
For Eileen, the name Pudsey Bear isn’t just a quirky choice—it’s a part of her identity that has been with her for years, yet it continues to be dismissed by officials.
As she faces the possibility of another rejected passport application, her story highlights the need for more consistent and fair practices when it comes to unusual name changes.