After eight years, Beyoncé wins legal battle to secure the trademarks for Blue Ivy’s name. (Photo by Allen Berezovsky/Getty Images)
Allen Berezovsky/ Getty Images
- Veronica Morales, a wedding planner from Massachusetts, attempted to block Beyoncé’s attempts to secure the intellectual property rights of her daughter, Blue Ivy Carter’s name.
- The wedding planner owns a company named Blue Ivy Events — an establishment that she is said to have founded before Blue Ivy was born.
- The American Trademark Trial and Appeal Board referred to Morales’ opposition as “unnecessary and a waste of time”.
The American Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favour of Beyoncé’s quest to secure the intellectual property rights of her first daughter’s name; Blue Ivy Carter.
This comes after Veronica Morales, a wedding planner from Massachusetts, attempted to block the singer’s attempts. The wedding planner owns a company named Blue Ivy Events — an establishment that she is said to have founded before Blue Ivy was born.
Once Morales got news of the Carter family naming their child Blue Ivy, she filed a notice of opposition because she feared that the likeness of the names could create a confusion between the two. Soon thereafter, the United States’ Patent and Trademark Office issued wedding planner, Morales, with a trademark registration for her company.
On the other side, Blue Ivy’s birth saw Beyoncé and Jay-Z working to secure trademarks of their daughters name for products ranging from books, to toiletries and video games as a means of safeguarding her. Their conviction is noted in a 2013 feature that Jay-Z had with Vanity Fair:
“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 shit 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 fuckin’ stroller with that kid’s name. It’s, like, where’s the humanity?”
According to Law and Crime
, a platform reporting on high profile American court cases, the American Trademark Trial and Appeal Board referred to Morales’ opposition as “unnecessary and a waste of time” during the ruling, which took place on 6 July. They then went on to say there was “no evidence suggesting they are related in a manner that would give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.”