Case
\nC\u2011298\/23<\/a>)<\/p>\nIn November 2022, the Flemish political party Vlaams Belang
\npresented its “IKEA-PLAN \u2013 Immigratie Kan Echt
\nAnders” (“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The
\nprogramme was presented in the unmistakable style of an IKEA
\nassembly manual: the blue-and-yellow colours, the chunky typeface,
\nthe simplified cartoon figures, and even the IKEA name and logo
\nitself.<\/p>\n
It clearly was a deliberate attempt to evoke the brand’s
\nglobal familiarity and to frame a political message using
\nIKEA’s trade marks and visual language. The use went beyond
\nmere reference or parody, leveraging the IKEA’s reputation to
\nattract attention to the party’s political agenda; although
\nunlike IKEA’s flat pack furniture, it was built for
\ncontroversy.<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, the Swedish furniture giant was quick to object;
\nfiling suit before the Brussels Business Court, claiming trademark
\ninfringement and that Vlaams Belang’s use of the IKEA trade
\nmarks took unfair advantage of the brand’s reputation.
\nFurthermore, they claimed that the use of IKEA’s marks in a
\npolitical campaign qualifies as “use in relation to goods or
\nservices”. The case triggered a broader legal question at
\nEuropean level: how far can freedom of political expression stretch
\nwhen it crosses with the rights of trademark holders?<\/p>\n
To help the CJEU reach its conclusion, the Court’s Advocate
\nGeneral, Maciej Szpunar, recently issued an opinion. His view was
\nclear: a political programme is not, in itself, a good or service.
\nHowever, organising an event under that sign, or affixing the sign
\nto objects for distribution to supporters, as well as advertising,
\ncould constitute use “in relation to goods or services”.
\nIf the Court follows the Advocate General on this point, Vlaams
\nBelang would likely avoid infringement under Article 10(2)(c),
\nwhich states that a trademark shall not be registered if it is
\nidentical or similar to an earlier trademark and is to be
\n“used for goods or services” that are identical or
\nsimilar, in such a way that there exists a likelihood of confusion
\non the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of
\nassociation with the earlier trademark. But that does not mean the
\nparty is completely in the clear. Owners of trademarks with a
\nreputation enjoy stronger protection; they may prevent others from
\nusing similar signs even outside their specific goods or services
\nif that use risks taking unfair advantage of the mark’s
\nreputation or damaging its distinctiveness or image. Yet even these
\nrights are not unlimited. EU law allows an exception where a third
\nparty’s use of a mark is justified by “due
\ncause”.<\/p>\n
As Szpunar noted in his opinion, “free political debate
\nis an essential element of any democratic society”. Since
\nEU trademark law contains no specific provisions on freedom of
\nexpression, the concept of “due cause” plays a key role
\nin balancing free expression with the rights of a trademark owner
\nwhose mark has a reputation. Szpunar referred to case-law on
\nbalancing the right to property with freedom of expression,
\nhighlighting that a key factor is whether “the expression at
\nissue contributes to a debate of general interest” and, in the
\nfield of political speech and debate, the form of the expression
\nand whether it is satirical in nature. Normally, there is little
\nscope for restrictions on political speech, but “a wider
\nmargin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting
\nStates when regulating freedom of expression in commercial
\nmatters”.<\/p>\n
While Vlaams Belang’s political programme concerns subjects
\nof legitimate public interest, the use of IKEA’s marks was not
\nrelevant to the programme itself, and solely for the purpose of
\nincreasing the visibility of that programme and of the political
\nparty proposing it. This meant that the use of the marks was not
\njustified by its contribution to a debate of general interest. It
\nwas also relevant that IKEA had never engaged in this debate.
\nAccordingly, the Advocate General concluded that Vlaams
\nBelang’s use of IKEA’s trademarks did not qualify as due
\ncause. Freedom of expression alone does not automatically justify
\nusing a famous trademark without permission, especially when the
\nuse is unrelated to the brand’s goods or services and relies on
\nthe brand’s reputation to draw attention. Freedom of expression
\ncan only qualify as due cause if it is directed at the trademark
\nholder and relate to the mark itself. Put simply, political parody
\nis not a free pass. The Advocate General warned that allowing such
\nuses could open the door to widespread “free-riding,”
\nwhere political, social, or commercial actors might exploit a
\nfamous brand’s identity to gain visibility or credibility.<\/p>\n
This clearly is a positive sign for IKEA, which obviously has
\nspent decades building a strong and consistent identity across
\ntrademarks, catalogues, manuals, and products. While it is only an
\nopinion and not the final ruling, it suggests that using a
\nwell-known trademark for political messaging without justification
\ncould harm the brand’s reputation. Even if people know the
\nparty isn’t officially connected to IKEA, being linked to a
\ncontroversial campaign could still affect how the brand is
\nperceived.<\/p>\n
If the CJEU ultimately agrees with the Advocate General,
\nwell-known trademarks could defend themselves beyond the commercial
\narena, in political contexts. Political parties, activists, or
\ncommentators would face stricter limits on using trade marks
\nwithout permission, whether for satire, criticism, or simply
\nattention, strengthening brand protection. It is a case that will
\nbe closely watched by retailers; looking to protect a recognised
\nbrand even against non-commercial uses and non-competitors.<\/p>\n
The reality is that political campaigns increasingly borrow from
\nadvertising, branding, or even songs from famous artists, using
\nfamiliar elements, humour, or nostalgia to connect with their
\naudiences. The question is how far the law will allow such uses. If
\nthe CJEU follows the AG opinion, retailers will have a solid
\nmechanism to protect their brand equity and image from dilution and
\nreputational harm.<\/p>\n
The upcoming CJEU judgment will be closely watched. If the Court
\nsides with the Advocate General, trade mark owners will gain
\nstronger legal grounds to prevent unauthorised uses in political or
\nideological contexts. If not, brands may need to prepare for
\ngreater exposure in public debates. Regardless of the outcome, it
\nis clear that trademarks are increasingly used for humor,
\ncriticism, or other purposes, and owners can no longer assume their
\nmarks appear only in the marketplace.<\/p>\n
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"HGF Ltd are most popular:
with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
(Inter IKEA Systems…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":24266,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-326147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-kingdom","tag-gb","tag-great-britain","tag-greatbritain","tag-news","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326147\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}