Liverpool FC’s attempt to trademark the word “Liverpool” has been rejected by the government’s Intellectual Property Office due to the “geographical significance” of the city.

The club’s trademark application came to light two months ago, with the club insisting it was purely “in the context of football products and services” and to stop people benefiting from the sale of what they described as “inauthentic products” relating to Jürgen Klopp’s European champions.

Despite the club’s insistence that all revenue from protected services and products using the word would be channelled into reinvestment – namely on transfers and the stadium – the trademark attempt sparked outrage within Liverpool FC’s own fanbase, as well as from outside supporters and observers, including the Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson. Many welcomed the IPO’s decision on Thursday.

Liverpool youngsters shine but James Milner steers them past MK Dons Read more

In a statement, Liverpool FC said: “The club accepts the decision that has been taken by the Intellectual Property Office, due primarily to what the official judgement cites as ‘the geographical significance’ of Liverpool as a city in comparison to place names that have been trademarked by other football clubs in the UK. We will, however, continue to aggressively pursue those large-scale operations which seek to illegally exploit our intellectual property and would urge the relevant authorities to take decisive action against such criminal activity wherever it exists.”

Peter Moore, the club’s chief executive officer, said: “It should be stressed that our application was put forward in good faith and with the sole aim of protecting and furthering the best interests of the club and its supporters. Nevertheless, we accept the decision and the spirit in which it has been made.

“I would also like to take the opportunity to reiterate our thanks to all those who engaged with us throughout this process, most notably independent traders and local football clubs.”

In further comments to the Liverpool Echo, Moore said: “We underestimated the reaction to it. We had, in very good faith, looked at what we were seeing on a global basis and particularly stuff that was coming into the UK. We felt obliged to protect the football club and had looked at other similar situations for clubs that had trademarked their place names in a football context, there are numerous examples.

“We felt that on behalf of the club we needed to do that - but I think it’s fair to say that we underestimated the emotional reaction to it and that’s our bad. Whilst we continued with the filing, we received the rejection from the IPO and we accept that and move on - we have got plenty of other stuff to do.”

Supporters union Spirit of Shankly described the IPO’s rejection of the trademark application as a “victory for common sense.” A statement said: “SOS were clear at the outset that the word ‘Liverpool’ is not for FSG [Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s owners] or anybody else to own – it belongs to the city of Liverpool and its people. We should all be allowed to use it freely, however we see fit, without fear of legal letters dropping through our doors.

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

“LFC have enough legal remedies from their current trademarks to address any issues they may have. Any more is unnecessary.”

A number of Liverpool FC supporters protested against the club’s trademark attempt by wearing non-official items of clothing carrying the club’s name and logo during the recent 3-1 victory over Newcastle United at Anfield.

“Without fan activism this issue may not have ended like this,” added the Spirit of Shankly statement. “Without fan involvement there would be no challenge to the corporate greed within football. SOS remain vigilant to the stealth of the club in their relentless pursuit of money at any cost.”