Earlier this week, The Guardian reported on a significant CJEU ruling involving IKEA and Belgian political party Vlaams Belang, with the court confirming that IKEA can pursue legal action over the party’s use of IKEA branding and imagery in an anti-immigration campaign. While the court acknowledged that political parody and freedom of expression are important rights, it found that these do not automatically justify the unauthorised use of a well-known trade mark, particularly where the use may damage the brand’s reputation or seek to benefit from its notoriety. The case will now return to the Belgian courts for a final decision.
Commenting in the article, Marks & Clerk Trade Mark and Design Associate Pauline Piernez highlighted the balance struck by the court between freedom of expression and trade mark rights. Pauline noted that while political parody remains permissible, “freedom of expression is not a blank cheque to appropriate the identity of a famous brand simply to amplify a message.” She emphasised that the court considered the use of IKEA’s branding to be primarily intended to capitalise on the company's reputation and increase the reach of a political message unrelated to the brand itself. Pauline described the decision as an important safeguard for the protection afforded to reputed trade marks and a reminder that brand owners can challenge uses that risk harming their reputation.
The story was subsequently picked up by a number of additional publications, including Europe Says, AOL and Exec Review, further extending the reach of Pauline’s commentary on this important trade mark and freedom of expression ruling.
Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.

