Beyonce recently won a court battle against a wedding planner for the trademark of her daughter’s name “Blue Ivy Carter.”
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sided with the “Black Parade” singer after a Massachusetts wedding planner attempted to block her attempt to secure the intellectual property rights for her 8-year-old’s name, according to a report from Law and Crime.
The victory that Beyonce quietly won in a little-noticed ruling took place over a week ago. Beyonce has attempted to trademark her daughter’s name for years. The megastar has filed applications that cover everything from books to pacifiers to video games to shampoo, among other things.
However, wedding planner Veronica Morales called her business “Blue Ivy Events,” prior to Blue Ivy Carter being born. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent Morales a trademark registration for the mark “Blue Ivy” in 2012 (the same year the daughter of Beyoncé and Jay-Z was born) for her business.
Morales filed a “notice of opposition” with TTAB, arguing that Beyoncé shouldn’t be allowed to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter” because there is a high risk of confusion between the two, on that basis.
In documents, Queen Bey said that Morales’ “likelihood of confusion” argument was frivolous because consumers are unlikely to confuse “a boutique wedding event planning business and Blue Ivy Carter, the daughter of two of the most famous performers in the world.” The Houston native referred to her daughter, Blue Ivy Carter, as a “cultural icon.”
Morales responded to the star’s claim, citing that Beyoncé and Jay-Z had no actual intention of using “Blue Ivy Carter” in commerce, but rather, filed for trademark protection simply to stop other people from using the name. Said actions would be problematic under trademark law, which aims to protect marks only for exclusive commercial use.
Morales also accused Beyoncé of engaging in fraud as she sought a trademark for a name she hadn’t been intending to use for commercial purposes. Morales referred to a 2013 interview Jay-Z gave to Vanity Fair, titled “Jay Z Has the Room.” In it, the Brooklyn rapper reportedly discussed his reasons for attempting to trademark his Blue Ivy’s name.
“People wanted to make products based on our child’s name, and you don’t want anybody trying to benefit off your baby’s name. It wasn’t for us to do anything; as you see, we haven’t done anything. First of all, it’s a child, and it bothers me when there’s no [boundaries]. I come from the streets, and even in the most atrocious sh– we were doing, we had lines: no kids, no mothers— there was respect there. But [now] there’s no boundaries. For somebody to say, This person had a kid—I’m gonna make a f—in’ stroller with that kid’s name. It’s, like, where’s the humanity?” Jay-Z said.
Both of Morales’ arguments were unceremoniously smacked down by the TTAB, siding on July 6 with Beyoncé on multiple grounds. The TTAB also criticized Morales for including extraneous documents in her brief to the board, deeming the move “unnecessary and a waste of time.” The board also noted that “attaching previously-filed evidence to a brief is neither a courtesy nor a convenience to the Board.”