• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Say Her Name, Say Her Name: Jay-Z and Beyoncé Are Almost Ready To Trademark ‘Blue Ivy’

Submitted by Asha Velay on January 28, 2013 – 12:01 AM6630No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F01%2F28%2Fsay-her-name-say-her-name-jay-z-and-beyonce-are-almost-ready-to-trademark-blue-ivy%2FSay+Her+Name%2C+Say+Her+Name%3A+Jay-Z+and+Beyonc%C3%A9+Are+Almost+Ready+To+Trademark+%E2%80%98Blue+Ivy%E2%80%99+2013-01-28+05%3A01%3A09Asha+Velayhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6630

Jay-Z & Beyonce @ Nets GameOn January 26th, 2012, only days after their daughter, Blue Ivy Carter, was born, Beyoncé and Jay-Z filed an “intent to use” application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the name “Blue Ivy Carter” through Beyoncé’s company, BGK Trademark Holdings.

Last Tuesday, the USPTO gave notice that the trademark application faces no opposition. Beyoncé and Jay-Z are on their way to acquiring the rights. They must now start using the trademark in commerce to prove that they are using the name to market their products. The celebrity couple plans to use the trademark for skin care products, key chains, ring tones, curlers, eyeglasses, strollers, handbags, stickers, playpens, wallets, baby bedding, teething rings, scrunchies, soccer balls, and movies.

While some may call their rush to the USPTO a shrewd business move aimed at furthering the Carter brand, the decision could also be considered a pre-emptive strike against companies aiming to profit off the celebrity couple’s empire and their baby daughter.

Blue Ivy has been dubbed “the world’s most famous baby.” She was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit, her baby clothes are documented by fashion bloggers worldwide, and she is the record holder of being the youngest person ever to appear on a billboard chart after Jay-Z released the song “Glory” within 48 hours of her birth, which incorporated her voice.

Right after Beyoncé and Jay-Z announced the newborn’s name to the press, trademark applications for “Blue Ivy” started popping up across the United States. On January 11th, four days after Blue Ivy’s birth, Joseph Mbeh, submitted an application to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter NYC” for a children’s clothing line. After the Trademark office denied the filing, Mbeth released a statement claiming it was all a misunderstanding and he never intended to piggyback off the celebrity couple’s fame. He insisted that he planned on pitching the clothing line to Beyoncé and Jay-Z, and after he found out Blue Ivy was not a registered trademark, he tried to secure it himself. Another business owner filed an application for “Blue Ivy Carter Glory IV” in hopes of using the trademark for a fragrance and body glitter collection. The trademark office denied the application, expressing concern that consumers would falsely believe that the celebrity couple approved the products when they did not.

The USPTO granted trademark rights to a Boston-based wedding planning company that has been operating under the name “Blue Ivy” since 2009, provided that the company only uses the name for event planning. Since Beyoncé and Jay-Z do not intend to use the trademark for event planning, the two trademarks don’t conflict.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Asha Velay

Asha Elizabeth Velay is a 2L at Washington College of Law and a Senior Blogger for the IP Brief. She graduated from Georgetown University with a BA in Psychology. Prior to law school, Asha worked as a music publicist for an artist management agency based out of New York City. She is interested in Trademark, Copyright, Media and Communications Law.

Asha Velay has written 13 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

“Everything Comes from Nature Vivid Entertainment Sends Cease & Desist Letter to HTC America Alleging Trademark Infringement Google the Next “Escalator”?  Search Engine’s Moniker Challenged as Generic for Web Searching Where Does Rioja Wine Really Come From? Pharma Giants Duke It Out: Pfizer’s Infringement Claim Against Merck’s Proposed Lipitor/Zetia Pill A Fracas about Fragrance: Copyright’s Application to Perfume Beatles Wheelchair Trademark Blocked Wegmans Settles with Walgreens over War of W’s Viacom’s Appeal Not So Appealing After YouTube Filing Sippy Cup Fight Spills Over To The CAFC.  CAFC Tells Appellant To Listen To Your District Court. Target’s Expansion Into Canada Stymied by Prior Trademark Holder Goodbye to Online Research? Class Action Complaint Filed Against LexisNexis and Westlaw for Copyright Infringement
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License