Blue Ivy Trademark

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299
Blue Ivy Trademark

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1678877/beyonce-jay-z-blue-ivy-trademark.jhtml

Beyonce And Jay-Z's Blue Ivy Trademark: An Expert Explains

Couple likely 'trying to protect what they rightfully own or created,' family law expert tells MTV News.

By John Mitchell

Beyonc? and Jay-Z have filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to protect their month-old baby's name and reserve it for future use, MTV News has confirmed. The superstar couple reportedly sought the trademark to stop the use of Blue Ivy's name by others. It's a smart move, according to family law attorney and author Vikki Ziegler. "[Seeking the trademark] forestalls competitors from using the child's name and or third parties from attempting to sell the baby's name back to the couple," Ziegler told MTV News. "They are likely trying to protect what they rightfully own or created, shall we say, by trademarking Blue Ivy's name."
The application to trademark Blue Ivy Carter's name, filed by BGK Trademark Holdings (Beyonc?'s company) is currently pending but will likely be approved because, as the Washington Post reports, parents are legally authorized to trademark the names of their minor children.
"In essence, it's a trademark for a brand, and this brand is expected to be one hot commodity ? just look at Blue Ivy's parents," Ziegler said. "Anyone else that tried to use the name after the trademark was approved could be sued and held liable for damages." While the Patent Office looks fondly on attempts to trademark the name of one's own child, attempts to do the same with the names of other people's kids are another story, as two designers learned when they sought ? just days after Blue Ivy's birth ? to trademark the baby's name for their own use.
Applications from fashion designer Joseph Mbeh to patent "Blue Ivy Carter NYC" and by an unnamed designer to trademark "Blue Ivy Carter Glory IV" for a fragrance line were denied by the Patent Office, which noted in its decision that the name belonged to a "very famous infant" and consumers would wrongly assume that any products bearing the name had been approved by Beyonc? and Jay-Z.
Ziegler noted that the trademark would "protect against others using the child's name as a brand of merchandise in the same marketplace," so it will not impact the "Blue Ivy" trademark held by a clothing boutique in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The store filed to trademark its name on January 19, 2011, a year before Queen B and Jay made the name famous. They received approval on August 23 ? five days before Beyonc? announced her pregnancy at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Do you think they actually created 'Blue Ivy' or is it just two non-proprietary words put together and there is nothing to trademark? What do you think about trademarking your child's name to put a product to market under that name? Is this turning your kid into a brand? Do you think the owner of the existing Blue Ivy store in Wisconsin would have a valid argument that this new trademark will hurt their business, or could it actually help?

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I don't think they should be able to trademark "Blue Ivy" at this time. Right now, it is just a person's name. If (when) down the road they come up with some product line, then they can set out to trademark the name/label.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I remember back when the internet started coming along and people would buy up domain names and then try to sell them for a fortune to the famous people whose names matched them. People were asking tens of thousands of dollars for something they really had no claim to, except that they bought it first. There were a lot of lawsuits over whether some Joe Blow who owned Madonna.com or MichaelJackson.com had to sell them for anything over the actual transfer cost or if he had a right to profit off someone else's name because he'd been bright enough to buy the domain before they did.

With that in mind, and with having given their daughter such a unique name, I can see how they might want to protect her right to use her own name for herself in the future. Also, Beyonce claims to be a fashion designer, so if she puts out a line of baby clothes & wants to name it after her daughter, she won't have to buy the rights to her own child's name. Of course, we wouldn't be having this talk if they'd named her Susie Jane Carter.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Just the fact that somebody else already tried proves that they were right to do it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Perfectly legal, but IMO pretty tacky. Not just the tradmark thing either - famous rich people cashing in on their kid who's a few weeks old. IDK. Ick.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I don't know. They could be putting that money away for their kids. I bet most people would be cool with their parents selling their newborn pictures/copyrighting their name if they were making the up to 10 million dollars these stars can make just by allowing someone to publish a picture of their baby. It might make it worth the crap they will have to go through as that star's kid. Right? They aren't going to get complete privacy no matter how much cash their parents throw at the cause, so why not make a little off of it?

pookieandme's picture
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 8

I don't think they are doing it to cash in on their baby. I don't think they even view their daughter as a brand or trying to make her a brand. I think they are just doing it from preventing others from cashing in on their fame and exploiting their daughter's inherent fame (to come). People have already tried to cash in...

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"pookieandme" wrote:

I don't think they are doing it to cash in on their baby. I don't think they even view their daughter as a brand or trying to make her a brand. I think they are just doing it from preventing others from cashing in on their fame and exploiting their daughter's inherent fame (to come). People have already tried to cash in...

Well, they're the ones that gave her the hardly common moniker of "Blue Ivy". If you don't want anyone to cash in on a unique name solely for that reason - being unique - then go with something more mainstream. If they had named their baby Emma or Sarah or Jane nobody would be lining up to get those trademarked, even if it IS Beyonce's baby.

Lillie, I don't really think they needed the extra money for the college fund. I have no idea what their combined net worth is but it must be in the hundreds of millions.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"wlillie" wrote:

Just the fact that somebody else already tried proves that they were right to do it.

Yep. Exactly.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

Hey, I'm not looking for any money from them, and they stole my actual middle name "Blue" and gave it to their kid... that's a joke people (although my middle name really is Blue)!! Wink
I'm fine with them trademarking whatever they want... it has no impact on my life whatsoever.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

But why should they be responsible for ensuring people don't use their name?! Picking names is hard enough! What happens if that a product with their kids name ends up being recalled? Can you imagine the hassle?

I know they are rich but they didn't get there and stay there by making bad business decisions. Even if they neverneeded the money it's be silly throwing away the opportunity to name your line after your kid. We don't need money but if people say it's for Jason we accept it (as longways we think they can afford it). We wouldn't accept anything foir us though. Just think of the hassle they went through for the birth. You couldn't pay me 10,000,000 to have the whole freaking world debating whether I was too posh to push or deal with the spotlight like they do. If people are silly enough to waste their money buying pictures, why should ar think it's tacit to sell them?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

WOW, I did a bad job of reading the entirety of the replies before agreeing with Lillie (though I still do).

Are you people kidding me calling it tacky? No different than a pre nup or buying rights to a sight with may involve your kids name (am I the only one who googled my kids full names and partial names before naming them that????).

This is 2012.

Sorry Lisa, but this is just otherwordly when it comes to the reality of celebrity these days

If you don't want anyone to cash in on a unique name solely for that reason - being unique - then go with something more mainstream.

Had I been Jay Z and named my kid something super common like Emily Elizabeth (Or whatever the most common girl names are these days) you can be darn sure I'd be trademarking it ~ or at least limiting the rights to it in relation to our name......I'm no miser but I'm not into the idea that my child can and will be a money making object should I not protect her domain name.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"pookieandme" wrote:

I don't think they are doing it to cash in on their baby. I don't think they even view their daughter as a brand or trying to make her a brand. I think they are just doing it from preventing others from cashing in on their fame and exploiting their daughter's inherent fame (to come). People have already tried to cash in...

Yes.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I would be very interested to find out how many celebs have trademarked their kids' names - Suri, Kal-El (I have a feeling that's already the property of whoever wrote Superman), Apple (same idea there too), etc.

Melis, I see your point, really, but it's just the whole premise, the idea, that celebs should feel so entitled to putting two common words together and calling it theirs. That's what leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would have never occured to me to google my kids' names before they were named. If a celeb called their kid exactly my DD's name, trademarked it, and then I unknowingly come along and want to name my daughter the same thing, should I not be allowed to?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

I would be very interested to find out how many celebs have trademarked their kids' names - Suri, Kal-El (I have a feeling that's already the property of whoever wrote Superman), Apple (same idea there too), etc.

Melis, I see your point, really, but it's just the whole premise, the idea, that celebs should feel so entitled to putting two common words together and calling it theirs. That's what leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would have never occured to me to google my kids' names before they were named. If a celeb called their kid exactly my DD's name, trademarked it, and then I unknowingly come along and want to name my daughter the same thing, should I not be allowed to?

A trademark has nothing to do with someone else being able to name their child the same name. It is only saying that no one else will be able to SELL goods under that name. So you can name your child Blue Ivy all you want, you just wouldn't be able to call your business that if you wanted to sell something under that name.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Everyone should google their kids names before they name them (IMO). My friend Sarah Riley sure wishes she had before she named her son Blake!!!! Not kidding.

Anyone in the world is allowed to name their child Blue Ivy. They simply aren't allowed to profit off of it or to use the name as though it is affiliated with JayZ/Beyonce/THeir child.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

The store in Wisconsin already named Blue Ivy - I wonder how this is going to impact their business. They'll probably have a zillion people asking if there's a connection to Blue Ivy Carter.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm guessing Fish Creek wisconsin isn't really a celeb hotbed, most people probably don't care all that much. The store isn't even open in the winter, so I'm guessing it isn't affecting business at all, really.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

I agree with Lillie and Melissa.

I also don't think small business in existence should have to worry. The idea is to protect larger businesses form purposely profiting off of the child's name.

If the two of them started going after small existing businesses for using the name, i would think thats lame and petty...as it would be interfering in a manner where it did not truly affect them.

Its kind of like copyrights on knitting patterns (I know copyrights and trademarks aren't the same thing)...but designers attempt to copyright their patterns so that large companies, like the GAP or whoever else, cannot take the pattern and start using it for profit without giving back to the designer. If a designer starts going after the grandma who's selling the items at a craft fair....that would be lame, as she is no true threat or making no large profit at the expense of the designer. Not a perfect analogy, but the same kind of thing...only exception is that there is great debate that you can even copyright a pattern and make it pertain to the products made from the pattern...but i digress.