The Beckham family disagreement has unexpectedly shone a spotlight on a niche corner of intellectual property law surrounding trade mark ownership. In his recent statement, Brooklyn Beckham suggested that pressure to 'sign away the rights to his name' contributed to the fallout between him and his famous parents.
Whilst we do not have the full details in this regard, we can guess that this may relate to the trade mark registrations of his name owned by his mother, Victoria Beckham (on his behalf).
Back in 2016, when Brooklyn was just 16 years old and a minor, the trade mark 'BROOKLYN BECKHAM' was filed in the UK, the EU, and China, covering a variety of goods and services. The trade mark applications were submitted in the name of his mother, Victoria Beckham, acting as his parent and guardian. This is a fairly common practice among celebrities and public figures, who often register their children’s names early to prevent third parties from misusing them.
The registrations cover several commercial areas, including:
- Clothing and fashion items
- Sports equipment
- Beauty and cosmetic products
Victoria Beckham also owns registrations for the names of her other three children, Romeo, Cruz and Harper, reflecting the family’s strong interest in brand protection. The registrations are due for renewal later this year, which may be adding to the current focus on who controls them.
Although it may seem strange, trade mark law treats a registered name as a commercial asset, the person named in the trade mark does not automatically own it. In this case, because Victoria Beckham is listed as the trade mark owner, she technically holds the IP rights, not Brooklyn himself.
This raises a natural question: Could Brooklyn be infringing his mother’s trade mark simply by using his own name in business?
Fortunately, the answer is not as alarming as it might sound. In the UK, trade mark legislation provides an important safeguard: an individual can use their own name and address in the course of trade as long as they do so in line with 'honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.'
This defence is designed to strike a balance between protecting trade mark rights and ensuring individuals are not unfairly prevented from using their own identity.
The bigger caveat is not the law; it’s any agreements in place surrounding the name/trade mark registration. Obviously, any terms of brand licence agreements the Beckhams may have in place would not be public knowledge, and there could, in theory, be a situation in which the right to use a name as a brand has been given away.
This was the case with famous brands based on an individual’s name, such as Karen Millen and Jo Malone (who due to the terms of an agreement, were then precluded from trading under their own names).
The Beckham example highlights a broader truth: names can be valuable commercial assets, especially for public figures whose identities attract attention and have marketing power. Registering them as trade marks is a sensible and often necessary step to prevent unauthorised use.
But when the name belongs to a real person, particularly a child, the lines between personal identity, parental responsibility, and commercial control can become blurred. These issues often only surface years later when the child grows up and builds their own public persona and have yet to be tested in the UK.
While family dynamics may have sparked the conversation, the underlying legal point is clear: trade marks involving personal names carry unique considerations.
Thankfully for Brooklyn, the law generally supports a person’s right to use their own name, provided it is used within the limitations.
If only resolving family disagreements were as straightforward.
Sarah Williams is a director of intellectual property, trade marks & designs with Leeds firm Walker Morris
No comments yet