Raoul Bova, an Italian actor, has taken the strategic step of registering the phrase “Occhi Spaccanti” (translated as “Chiech eyes” or “piercing eyes” in English) as a trademark with the Italian Patent and Trademark Office (Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi) to prevent the further spread and commercial exploitation of private audio messages that became viral. This move was reported on August 13, 2025, and stems from a privacy scandal involving leaked audio conversations between Bova and model/influencer Martina Ceretti, which were made public by Fabrizio Corona’s podcast Falsissimo on July 21, 2025. Below is a detailed analysis based on available information.
Background of the Scandal
- Leaked Audio: Approximately two weeks before July 31, 2025, Bova received an anonymous message warning that private audio exchanges with Ceretti could be leaked, potentially damaging his reputation. Despite not complying with the implied blackmail, the audio was released on Corona’s podcast, sparking widespread media attention and public discussion.
- Legal Action: Bova filed a complaint with Italy’s Data Protection Authority (Garante della Privacy) against the unauthorized dissemination of the audio, which went viral and fueled gossip about his personal life, including his divorce from Rocío Muñoz Morales and rumored ties with Ceretti. The investigation, led by prosecutor Eliana Dolce, is ongoing, with the phone number linked to the blackmail attempt traced to a strawman (prestanome). Corona, previously convicted for extortion, is not currently under investigation, but authorities are exploring possible charges like receiving stolen goods if the audio’s illicit origin is confirmed.
- Defamation Lawsuit: Bova’s lawyer, Annamaria Bernardini De Pace, filed a defamation lawsuit against Corona, alleging he shared a manipulated audio of a conversation between her and Corona, accompanied by insults and false claims, to exploit the scandal’s media attention.
The “Occhi Spaccanti” Trademark
- Trademark Registration: Bova registered two trademark applications: one for the full phrase from the viral audio and another specifically for “Occhi Spaccanti,” a distinctive phrase from the leaked messages. This legal maneuver aims to restrict others from profiting off the phrase through merchandise, media, or other commercial uses.
- Purpose: By securing the trademark, Bova seeks to control the narrative and prevent further exploitation of the audio, which has been widely shared and mocked online. The move is seen as a proactive defense against the commodification of his private conversations, particularly given the phrase’s viral status.
- Public Sentiment: Posts on X, such as those from @trash_italiano and @tempoweb, describe the trademark as a “strategic” effort to curb the audio’s spread. @gianca_net called it a “BOOM” move, emphasizing its exclusivity as breaking news, while @Lettera43 noted the dual trademark filings. The sentiment reflects a mix of amusement at the phrase’s popularity and recognition of Bova’s attempt to reclaim control.
Critical Analysis
- Legal Strategy: Registering “Occhi Spaccanti” as a trademark is a creative legal tactic to limit unauthorized commercial use, such as on T-shirts, memes, or media products. However, it may not fully halt the audio’s spread on social platforms, as trademark law doesn’t directly govern private sharing. The move complements Bova’s privacy complaint and defamation lawsuit, creating a multi-pronged defense.
- Effectiveness: While the trademark can block commercial exploitation, the audio’s viral nature—amplified by Corona’s platform—makes complete containment challenging. The phrase’s cultural traction, as noted in X posts, suggests it may persist in public discourse regardless of legal efforts.
- Broader Implications: This case underscores the growing challenge of protecting privacy in the digital age, especially for public figures. The use of trademark law to combat viral content sets a potential precedent for celebrities facing similar breaches, though its success depends on enforcement and public cooperation.
Limitations
The available information doesn’t specify the exact content of the “Occhi Spaccanti” audio or its full context, limiting a deeper analysis of its cultural impact. Additionally, the investigation’s status and potential outcomes remain unclear, as the case is ongoing.
Sources
- Web: S&H Magazine, July 31, 2025
- Web: Vipiù, July 31, 2025
- Web: IlSipontino.net, August 2, 2025
- X Posts: @trash_italiano, @gianca_net, @tempoweb, @Lettera43, August 7–13, 2025
If you’d like me to search for more details about the audio’s content, analyze public sentiment further, or explore similar cases of trademark use for privacy protection, let me know!