Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Are Beyonce and Jay-Z committing fraud?

Are Beyonce and Jay-Z committing fraud?

Beyonce and Jay-Z have recently decided to register the name of their newborn baby, BLUE IVY CARTER, as a trademark. According to some media outlets the couple has done this to prevent others from using their baby’s name as a trademark.

Although it is very commendable that the couple would register their child’s name as a trademark, in order to protect its well-being, from a trademark proprietor’s point of view it is tricky to say the least. The reason for this is the fact that in the United States use is a requirement for trademark registration, unlike in Europe. If the trademark is not in use yet, a declaration intention of use must accompany the application. Since Beyonce and Jay-Z are currently not using their baby’s name in commerce, it stands to reason that they have filed their trademark with a declaration of intent to use. In the future, the couple would need to proof that their trademark has actually been used in commerce.

If they are incapable of providing proof that they have actually used their trademark, the trademark applicationwill be cancelled. Furthermore, if they fail to proof that they even had the intent to even use the trademark, the USPTO will decide that Beyonce and Jay-Z have committed fraud with their application.

One may ask themselves why Beyonce and Jay-Z have even bothered to apply for a trademark. After all if a third party would register the trademark, the USPTO would refuse it due to the fact that the consumer would assume that there is a connection to the artists. I suppose that Beyonce and Jay-Z probably do have some future plans for the mark after all.

Although it is impossible to “block” the use of a name through a trademark application in the United States, without intent to use, this is not the case in Europe. Willem Holleeder, a notorious Dutch criminal has recently done just this. He may lose his trademark after 5 years of none-use, but he will not have committed fraud. The ironic thing here is that while both Holleeder and the “Z”’s are doing the same thing, a convicted criminal is not violating the law, while two well-meaning parents are.

trademark-registration

Trademark registration
»


Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?
Play the quiz
»