Jump to content

Archived

This thread has been closed to further replies because it was not updated for 12 months. If you wish to have this thread reinstated, please contact an administrator.

ParentalAdvisory

Beyoncé calls Blue Ivy a ‘cultural icon’ in legal battle to trademark her name

Recommended Posts

 

Beyonce is arguing that her daughter Blue Ivy is a ‘cultural icon’ as she fights to trademark her little girl’s name. Bey has become locked in a legal battle over the trademark, as wedding planner Wendy Morales is trying to block Beyonce’s case because her wedding planning company is also called Blue Ivy. Reports claim the pair are headed for trial over the trademark and Beyonce is arguing that her daughter Blue Ivy is a ‘cultural icon’ and should therefore be granted it over Morales. Court documents obtained by The Blast, Beyonce throws out Morales argument that consumers will be confused between Blue Ivy – the daughter of two of the world’s most well-known performers – and the wedding planning business. She calls the claims ‘frivolous’ and argues they should be ‘refused in their entirety’. Beyonce also points out that the trademark is for Blue Ivy’s full name, Blue Ivy Carter, and not Blue Ivy like Morales’ company.

 

71719-blue-ivy-beyonce-index.jpg?quality

Beyoncé has long been considered a cultural icon, earning the appropriate nickname Queen Bey.

And according to the Lemonade artist, that title also applies to her daughter Blue Ivy Carter. 

She declared Blue Ivy a 'cultural icon' in a trademark dispute for the the seven-year-old's name, which has been waging for years.

The 38-year-old is up against Wendy Morales, who claims she's already been using 'Blue Ivy' as the name of her wedding planning business.

Bey also threw some not-so-subtle shade at Morales in the court documents, which notes she's trying to trademark 'Blue Ivy Carter' and not 'Blue Ivy.'

The Lion King star argued that Morales' claims '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.'

 

The Emmy-nominee went on to call her 7-year-old daughter a “cultural icon” while taking a few shots at Morales’ company, calling it a “small business, with just three regional offices and a handful of employees.” She also mentioned its “weak online presence and poorly subscribed social media accounts.”

Beyoncé and Jay-Z first applied for the trademark in 2012 and were denied shortly after.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly surprised that Beyonce is egotistical enough to automatically consider her offspring cultural icons, considering that she still surprise releases expecting huge success, her team acted like children when she lost the Emmy because they expected a win and wanted to ride it with the documentary, etc. She really needs to get the hell off of that pedestal that she puts herself on just as much as her fans do for her.

brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it makes sense that she would trademark her daughter's name sice it's pretty unique and people could use it to link Beyoncé's name to their bussiness.

It's not like she's trying to trademark "Ashley" or some common ass name. Y'all are acting pressed when Taylor Swift was trying to trademark a whole year not long ago and Kim Kardashian was trying to do the same with the word "kimono".

bey4

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Normani said:

I mean it makes sense that she would trademark her daughter's name sice it's pretty unique and people could use it to link Beyoncé's name to their bussiness.

It's not like she's trying to trademark "Ashley" or some common ass name. Y'all are acting pressed when Taylor Swift was trying to trademark a whole year not long ago and Kim Kardashian was trying to do the same with the word "kimono".

bey4

She has the freedom to trademark her daughter's name. It's the "cultural icon" comment that makes this a bit extra carla1

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

She has the freedom to trademark her daughter's name. It's the "cultural icon" comment that makes this a bit extra carla1

her lawyers drafted that up (she def approved it) and it's to show why she should be able to trademark it since people will try to use that name to try and earn money from Blue's name ny12 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miss Show Business said:

She has the freedom to trademark her daughter's name. It's the "cultural icon" comment that makes this a bit extra carla1

I think she just said that so there's a reason to trademark it without having to release products with her name.

In the US if you want to trademark something you have to show that you're using that trademark. It's the reason why most celebrities fail at trademarking their children's names. That's what the Kardashian did get to trademark their kids' names. They alleged that their kids' names were used for entertainment purposes (aka their reality show) and they got the trademark. That might also be the reason why Blue Ivy is appearing so much on their parents' songs, so they can justify the trademark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking a small business owner is not a good look. um3 Neither is claiming your offspring “Cultural Icons” despite them having done nothing. brit5 This woman is really doing the most, no wonder there’s a backlash against her 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, Normani said:

I mean it makes sense that she would trademark her daughter's name sice it's pretty unique and people could use it to link Beyoncé's name to their bussiness.

It's not like she's trying to trademark "Ashley" or some common ass name. Y'all are acting pressed when Taylor Swift was trying to trademark a whole year not long ago and Kim Kardashian was trying to do the same with the word "kimono".

bey4

people did react just as poorly. And at least those are business indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, VoiceOfTheQueen said:

people did react just as poorly. And at least those are business indeed.

Come on, like trying to avoid having people profit from your children's name is worse than trying to trademark a whole year for business.

The lengths some of y'all will go to hate on her.

gag1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×