The trade mark application of superstars Jay-Z and Beyoncé to register the name of their infant daughter, Blue Ivy, as a trade mark has been met with much criticism, both legally and socially.

The famous couple filed their BLUE IVY trade mark application - in the US shortly after their daughter’s birth in January 2012 but the application was put on ice due to an application filed by a Boston events planner for the mark BLUE IVY, which she had commenced using in 2009, in respect of event and wedding planning and related marketing and advertising. The US PTO has since confirmed that Blue Ivy Events has the right to use and register the BLUE IVY trade mark in respect of its services of interest.

Jay-Z and Beyoncé have successfully registered their daughter’s name as a trade mark in other jurisdictions, however.

The legal discussions around this matter have related to the questions of whether or not Jay-Z and Beyoncé should be entitled to register the trade mark BLUE IVY at all, and whether their application to do so amounts to an abuse of intellectual property law.

Some argue that the celebrities’ BLUE IVY trade mark does not serve a trade mark function as it cannot communicate to the public that the goods to which the mark will be applied come from a particular source, in other words, it is not a “badge of origin”. In addition, it is argued that, although celebrities often register their names as trade marks with a view to simplifying the licensing of their names for commercial gain and preventing false claims of endorsement, the celebrity in question, little Blue Ivy, is not capable of endorsing any goods at this stage. Her parents’ attempt to monopolise her name, and potentially any confusingly similar names or marks, as a trade mark is therefore, some argue, inappropriate.

On the other hand, given the popularity of celebrity endorsements and the prominent celebrity lifestyles of Blue Ivy’s parents, it is conceivable that third parties may wish to use Blue Ivy’s name in respect of the goods for which her parents sought registration (which included, inter alia, baby products, CDs, eyeglasses, curlers and handbags) with the specific aim of creating the impression that the goods are endorsed by her parents or emanate from them.

In addition, even though Blue Ivy’s parents have not yet used her name as a trade mark in respect of goods, it is also conceivable that they may wish to do so in the near future. One can imagine that a range of baby products branded BLUE IVY and endorsed by Beyoncé and Jay-Z would be another smash hit for the power couple. Obtaining trade mark registrations for their daughter’s name would therefore be a prudent business decision and, provided there is an intention to use the trade mark, this would not amount to an abuse of intellectual property law.

The celebrity “trend” of peculiar baby names is seemingly therefore more likely a shrewd business decision than merely an attempt at being trendy or non-conformist. Celebrities realise their selling power, and that of their offspring, and accordingly name their children not only to identify them personally, but also to identify them as a marketable brand in their own right. What their children will have to say about that, only time will tell.

Written by Nicole Smalberger, associate, Adams & Adams
Verified by Kelly Thompson, partner, Adams & Adams