HGF Ltd are most popular:


with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries

(Inter IKEA Systems v Algemeen Vlaams Belang
(Case
C‑298/23)

In November 2022, the Flemish political party Vlaams Belang
presented its “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt
Anders” (“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The
programme was presented in the unmistakable style of an IKEA
assembly manual: the blue-and-yellow colours, the chunky typeface,
the simplified cartoon figures, and even the IKEA name and logo
itself.

It clearly was a deliberate attempt to evoke the brand’s
global familiarity and to frame a political message using
IKEA’s trade marks and visual language. The use went beyond
mere reference or parody, leveraging the IKEA’s reputation to
attract attention to the party’s political agenda; although
unlike IKEA’s flat pack furniture, it was built for
controversy.

Unsurprisingly, the Swedish furniture giant was quick to object;
filing suit before the Brussels Business Court, claiming trademark
infringement and that Vlaams Belang’s use of the IKEA trade
marks took unfair advantage of the brand’s reputation.
Furthermore, they claimed that the use of IKEA’s marks in a
political campaign qualifies as “use in relation to goods or
services”. The case triggered a broader legal question at
European level: how far can freedom of political expression stretch
when it crosses with the rights of trademark holders?

To help the CJEU reach its conclusion, the Court’s Advocate
General, Maciej Szpunar, recently issued an opinion. His view was
clear: a political programme is not, in itself, a good or service.
However, organising an event under that sign, or affixing the sign
to objects for distribution to supporters, as well as advertising,
could constitute use “in relation to goods or services”.
If the Court follows the Advocate General on this point, Vlaams
Belang would likely avoid infringement under Article 10(2)(c),
which states that a trademark shall not be registered if it is
identical or similar to an earlier trademark and is to be
“used for goods or services” that are identical or
similar, in such a way that there exists a likelihood of confusion
on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of
association with the earlier trademark. But that does not mean the
party is completely in the clear. Owners of trademarks with a
reputation enjoy stronger protection; they may prevent others from
using similar signs even outside their specific goods or services
if that use risks taking unfair advantage of the mark’s
reputation or damaging its distinctiveness or image. Yet even these
rights are not unlimited. EU law allows an exception where a third
party’s use of a mark is justified by “due
cause”.

As Szpunar noted in his opinion, “free political debate
is an essential element of any democratic society”. Since
EU trademark law contains no specific provisions on freedom of
expression, the concept of “due cause” plays a key role
in balancing free expression with the rights of a trademark owner
whose mark has a reputation. Szpunar referred to case-law on
balancing the right to property with freedom of expression,
highlighting that a key factor is whether “the expression at
issue contributes to a debate of general interest” and, in the
field of political speech and debate, the form of the expression
and whether it is satirical in nature. Normally, there is little
scope for restrictions on political speech, but “a wider
margin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting
States when regulating freedom of expression in commercial
matters”.

While Vlaams Belang’s political programme concerns subjects
of legitimate public interest, the use of IKEA’s marks was not
relevant to the programme itself, and solely for the purpose of
increasing the visibility of that programme and of the political
party proposing it. This meant that the use of the marks was not
justified by its contribution to a debate of general interest. It
was also relevant that IKEA had never engaged in this debate.
Accordingly, the Advocate General concluded that Vlaams
Belang’s use of IKEA’s trademarks did not qualify as due
cause. Freedom of expression alone does not automatically justify
using a famous trademark without permission, especially when the
use is unrelated to the brand’s goods or services and relies on
the brand’s reputation to draw attention. Freedom of expression
can only qualify as due cause if it is directed at the trademark
holder and relate to the mark itself. Put simply, political parody
is not a free pass. The Advocate General warned that allowing such
uses could open the door to widespread “free-riding,”
where political, social, or commercial actors might exploit a
famous brand’s identity to gain visibility or credibility.

This clearly is a positive sign for IKEA, which obviously has
spent decades building a strong and consistent identity across
trademarks, catalogues, manuals, and products. While it is only an
opinion and not the final ruling, it suggests that using a
well-known trademark for political messaging without justification
could harm the brand’s reputation. Even if people know the
party isn’t officially connected to IKEA, being linked to a
controversial campaign could still affect how the brand is
perceived.

If the CJEU ultimately agrees with the Advocate General,
well-known trademarks could defend themselves beyond the commercial
arena, in political contexts. Political parties, activists, or
commentators would face stricter limits on using trade marks
without permission, whether for satire, criticism, or simply
attention, strengthening brand protection. It is a case that will
be closely watched by retailers; looking to protect a recognised
brand even against non-commercial uses and non-competitors.

The reality is that political campaigns increasingly borrow from
advertising, branding, or even songs from famous artists, using
familiar elements, humour, or nostalgia to connect with their
audiences. The question is how far the law will allow such uses. If
the CJEU follows the AG opinion, retailers will have a solid
mechanism to protect their brand equity and image from dilution and
reputational harm.

The upcoming CJEU judgment will be closely watched. If the Court
sides with the Advocate General, trade mark owners will gain
stronger legal grounds to prevent unauthorised uses in political or
ideological contexts. If not, brands may need to prepare for
greater exposure in public debates. Regardless of the outcome, it
is clear that trademarks are increasingly used for humor,
criticism, or other purposes, and owners can no longer assume their
marks appear only in the marketplace.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.