Beyoncé Says Blue Ivy Is "A Cultural Icon" In Trademark Dispute Over Daughter’s Name


Beyoncé and Jay-Z have been trying to trademark the first daughter, Blue Ivy’s, name since she was born in 2012. That year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied their request, as “Blue Ivy” was already being used by a Boston-based wedding and event planning company. However, Bey and Jay were not going to step down so easily. Their daughter is too much of an innate star for her (somewhat) unique name to not be reserved for whatever endeavors lie ahead for her.  

Beyoncé Says Blue Ivy Is "A Cultural Icon" In Trademark Dispute Over Daughter's NameAllen Berezovsky/Getty Images

The legal dispute has been going on for years, occasionally making headlines when a major turn occurs. Today’s news on the case is that, in recently filed documents (and reported by The Blast), Beyoncé got sassy with the owner of the events company, Veronica Morales. The Lemonade artist accused Morales of feeding off Blue Ivy Carter’s fame to grow her own business, which still struggles to make much of a splash. Bey accuses Morales’ company of “[exhibiting] a pattern and practice of affirmatively attempting to connect its brand with Blue Ivy Carter to increase its exposure and drum up business.” Bey references radio interviews in which Morales mentioned her business receiving more attention following BIC’s birth. Morales even had a sale on Blue Ivy’s birthday.

Bey then shades Blue Ivy Events for being irrelevant in comparison with her daughter and highlights why it would be absurd to block her trademark which is specifically for “Blue Ivy Carter”. The document states, “That consumers are likely to be confused between a boutique wedding event planning business and Blue Ivy Carter, the daughter of two of the most famous performers in the world, is frivolous and should be refused in its entirety.”

Beyoncé Says Blue Ivy Is "A Cultural Icon" In Trademark Dispute Over Daughter's NameAlberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

For the final blow, Bey refutes Morales’ claim that the Carters don’t even have specific intentions to make use of the trademark for anything. Momma Carter makes this argument by citing her daughter’s undeniable creative potential and her already iconic image:

“Indeed, the circumstantial evidence, including Blue Ivy Carter’s fame, her interest in fashion and design, and her familial relationship with two of the most famous performers in the world all support BGK’s intent to use the BLUE IVY CATER trademark in connection with building a brand consistent with Blue Ivy Carter’s interests and skills… Blue Ivy Carter is a cultural icon who has been described as a “mini style star” and has been celebrated for her “fashion moments” overs the years. Her life and activities are followed extensively by the media and the public… Most significantly, Blue Ivy Carter has achieved a significant amount of fame, particularly at such a young age. She also has a noted and well-chronicled interest in fashion. Given these factors, Blue Ivy Carter is capable of and interested in becoming the face of a brand. For this reason, the factual context demonstrates that BGK filed the Application with the intent to build a brand around Blue Ivy Carter and her public reputation and renown.”

Let’s see if these points are persuasive enough for Bey & Jay to finally win this case.