• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BLUE IVY vs. Beyoncé: no privacy in the long-standing trademark dispute

8. January 2018

New episode in years of dispute over the BLUE IVY trademark – and the name of the five-year-old daughter of the famous singer Beyoncé: A request for privacy by Beyoncé was rejected a few days ago by the American Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

BeyonceBeyoncé and Morales are involved in a prominent litigation for the BLUE IVY and BLUE IVY CARTER brand names. Beyonce and her husband Jay-Z asked for a protective order that would prohibit the publication of details about the time and place of the meeting. Her five-year-old daughter’s name is Blue Ivy Carter. For that reason should no information about their family that could be raised in the case during the interview be made public. Beyonce referred to the safety concerns of the singer towards her family and especially her daughter. However, The Trademark Lawyer reported that this bid for confidentiality was rejected by the American Patent Trial and Appeal Board a few days ago.

Classical trademark dispute over the word mark BLUE IVY

ShowHowever, the actual lawsuit is not a personal one, but a classic trademark dispute between BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC, and the BLUE IVY Event Planning Services of Veronica Morales. The applicant, Mrs Morales, opposes the trade mark BLUE IVY CARTER on the basis of two main arguments:

  • it is not intended to use the wide range of services listed in the BLUE IVY CARTER brand.
  • there is a likelihood of confusion with the BLUE IVY event planning brand and Beyonce with BGK Holding lacks a good intention to use it.

Veronica Morales has been a registered trademark owner for BLUE IVY (U. S. Registration No. 4224833) since 2012. The word mark BLUE IVY is protected for “event planning and management for marketing, branding, promotion or advertising of goods and services of others”. At almost the same time, Beyoncé applied for protection via the cover company BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC, BLUE IVY CARTER. Both brands were approved, whereby Morales received trademark registration in 2012 and BGK Holding received a notification of registration on 22 January 2013.

An approved trademark should also be used in the trade

As soon as there is notification of admission, a declaration of use should be submitted when the use of the trademark begins in trade. If the trademark has not been used within 6 months, an extension of 6 months may be applied for in order to file such a declaration of use. The applicant may submit a total of five renewal applications. And indeed, BGK Holding took advantage of all five renewals without officially using the BLUE IVY CARTER brand. Possibly because there was another competitor for the popular brand name: CBH By Benton Clothier LLC had also wanted to protect the brand BLUE IVY CARTER GLORY IV.

The outcome of the BLUE IVY case is open

The brand only gained new momentum in 2017: the famous singer submitted further legal documents on the “Blue Ivy Carter” brand. She argued that her daughter’s name was the reason why she could reserve the right to use the nickname BLUE IVY in beauty, fashion and electronics or to prevent others from exploiting her daughter’s identity. She defends trademark owner Morales against this. It will be difficult for singer Beyoncé to argue that Morales is commercially exploiting her daughter’s identity. Because Morales applied for trademark protection on BLUE IVY three years before the birth of Blue Ivy Carter. The outcome in this case is open.

Are you looking for protection for your trademark rights?

We would be pleased to support you with the necessary research and correct registration of your trademark. Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

 

Souces:

Trade mark registration BLUE IVY

Pictures:

1209 / pixabay.com / CC0 License || fbhk / pixabay.com / CC0 License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconBeyonce,  BLUE IVY,  brand,  Morales,  U.S.

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.