Beyoncé’s Trade Mark Journey: The Blue Ivy Carter Case

In the complex world of intellectual property (IP), even the biggest celebrities are not immune to legal challenges.

A recent case put before the US Trade Mark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has highlighted the ongoing battle of world-renowned singer-songwriter Beyoncé to secure a trade mark for her daughter’s name, Blue Ivy Carter.

Emily Thomson, Senior Trade Marks and Designs Paralegal at Pure Ideas, delves into the nuances of this high-profile trade mark dispute, shedding light on the legal principles and proceedings that have shaped its outcome.

The Origins of the Dispute

For several years, Beyoncé has sought to trade mark her daughter’s name, Blue Ivy Carter, with the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).

The application aimed to cover a wide range of goods, including video games, shampoos, baby items, books, and more. The intention was to prevent others from exploiting her daughter’s name for commercial gain. However, this application faced a significant hurdle in the form of Veronica Morales, a Massachusetts-based entrepreneur.

Morales, who owned a wedding and event planning business named Blue Ivy Events, filed an opposition notice with the USPTO. She argued that her business had prior rights to the name, having registered “Blue Ivy” in 2012 – the same year Beyoncé’s daughter was born. Morales based her opposition on the grounds of a “likelihood of confusion,” suggesting that consumers might mistakenly associate her event planning business with the singer’s daughter. The dispute then escalated for review before the TTAB.

The TTAB’s Ruling

The TTAB reviewed Morales’ claim and found it to be unreliable. The board determined that it was highly unlikely that the average consumer would confuse a wedding event planning business with the daughter of two world-famous musicians. Despite Morales’ earlier registration of the name, the context and industry of use were markedly different, reducing the potential for confusion.

Attempting to bolster her position, Morales argued that Beyoncé and Jay-Z had no genuine intention of using “Blue Ivy Carter” in commerce and were merely seeking to prevent others from using the name. This argument was rooted in US trade mark law, which mandates that trade marks must be applied for with a bona fide intent to use them in commerce.

Persistence and Reapplication

Despite Morales’ persistence, the TTAB sided with Beyoncé on multiple grounds, ultimately shutting down Morales’ claims. Surprisingly, even after overcoming this significant legal hurdle, Beyoncé did not immediately proceed with the trade mark application. As a result, the application was initially abandoned.

However, in November 2023, Beyoncé refiled the trademark application for Blue Ivy Carter. This time, the USPTO identified a potential issue with a confusingly similar mark, “Blue Ivy Logo,” owned by a boutique in Wisconsin. Fortunately for Beyoncé, the boutique did not object to her application, allowing it to move forward.

Publication and Potential Opposition

On December 31, 2024, Beyoncé’s trade mark application for Blue Ivy Carter was officially published in the US Trademark Official Gazette.

This publication marked the beginning of a 30-day opposition period, terminating on January 30, 2025. During this period, any party with grounds to oppose the trade mark could file an objection.

If no objections were raised within this window, a Notice of Allowance would be granted, bringing Beyoncé one step closer to securing the long-awaited trade mark registration for her daughter’s name.

Implications for Intellectual Property Rights

This case highlights several critical aspects of intellectual property law, particularly the importance of bona fide intent in trade mark applications.

Trade mark law is designed to protect brands and consumers, ensuring that marks are used genuinely in commerce and not merely as a means to block others from using a name.

Beyoncé’s persistence in securing the trade mark for Blue Ivy Carter shows the significance of protecting personal and family names from commercial exploitation. It also demonstrates the lengths to which individuals must sometimes go to safeguard their intellectual property rights, even when they are globally recognised figures.

How can Pure Ideas Help?

Beyoncé’s trademark journey for Blue Ivy Carter is a testament to the complexities and challenges inherent in the world of intellectual property.

For entrepreneurs, businesses, and legal professionals, this case serves as a valuable lesson in the importance of thorough preparation, persistence, and understanding of trade mark law. While the specifics of each case vary, the principles of protecting your brand, ensuring genuine commercial use remain constant.

Are you looking to develop and protect a personal brand? Give us a call or email to find out how our IP experts can help.