When Retail Branding Meets Politics

(Inter IKEA Systems v Algemeen Vlaams Belang (Case C‑298/23)

In November 2022, the Flemish political party Vlaams Belang presented its “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The programme was presented in the unmistakable style of an IKEA assembly manual: the blue-and-yellow colours, the chunky typeface, the simplified cartoon figures, and even the IKEA name and logo itself.

It clearly was a deliberate attempt to evoke the brand’s global familiarity and to frame a political message using IKEA’s trade marks and visual language. The use went beyond mere reference or parody, leveraging the IKEA’s reputation to attract attention to the party’s political agenda; although unlike IKEA’s flat pack furniture, it was built for controversy.

Unsurprisingly, the Swedish furniture giant was quick to object; filing suit before the Brussels Business Court, claiming trademark infringement and that Vlaams Belang’s use of the IKEA trade marks took unfair advantage of the brand’s reputation. Furthermore, they claimed that the use of IKEA’s marks in a political campaign qualifies as “use in relation to goods or services”. The case triggered a broader legal question at European level: how far can freedom of political expression stretch when it crosses with the rights of trademark holders?

To help the CJEU reach its conclusion, the Court’s Advocate General, Maciej Szpunar, recently issued an opinion. His view was clear: a political programme is not, in itself, a good or service. However, organising an event under that sign, or affixing the sign to objects for distribution to supporters, as well as advertising, could constitute use “in relation to goods or services”. If the Court follows the Advocate General on this point, Vlaams Belang would likely avoid infringement under Article 10(2)(c), which states that a trademark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to an earlier trademark and is to be “used for goods or services” that are identical or similar, in such a way that there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trademark. But that does not mean the party is completely in the clear. Owners of trademarks with a reputation enjoy stronger protection; they may prevent others from using similar signs even outside their specific goods or services if that use risks taking unfair advantage of the mark’s reputation or damaging its distinctiveness or image. Yet even these rights are not unlimited. EU law allows an exception where a third party’s use of a mark is justified by “due cause”.

As Szpunar noted in his opinion, “free political debate is an essential element of any democratic society”. Since EU trademark law contains no specific provisions on freedom of expression, the concept of “due cause” plays a key role in balancing free expression with the rights of a trademark owner whose mark has a reputation. Szpunar referred to case-law on balancing the right to property with freedom of expression, highlighting that a key factor is whether “the expression at issue contributes to a debate of general interest” and, in the field of political speech and debate, the form of the expression and whether it is satirical in nature. Normally, there is little scope for restrictions on political speech, but “a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting States when regulating freedom of expression in commercial matters”.

While Vlaams Belang’s political programme concerns subjects of legitimate public interest, the use of IKEA’s marks was not relevant to the programme itself, and solely for the purpose of increasing the visibility of that programme and of the political party proposing it. This meant that the use of the marks was not justified by its contribution to a debate of general interest. It was also relevant that IKEA had never engaged in this debate. Accordingly, the Advocate General concluded that Vlaams Belang’s use of IKEA’s trademarks did not qualify as due cause. Freedom of expression alone does not automatically justify using a famous trademark without permission, especially when the use is unrelated to the brand’s goods or services and relies on the brand’s reputation to draw attention. Freedom of expression can only qualify as due cause if it is directed at the trademark holder and relate to the mark itself. Put simply, political parody is not a free pass. The Advocate General warned that allowing such uses could open the door to widespread “free-riding,” where political, social, or commercial actors might exploit a famous brand’s identity to gain visibility or credibility.

This clearly is a positive sign for IKEA, which obviously has spent decades building a strong and consistent identity across trademarks, catalogues, manuals, and products. While it is only an opinion and not the final ruling, it suggests that using a well-known trademark for political messaging without justification could harm the brand’s reputation. Even if people know the party isn’t officially connected to IKEA, being linked to a controversial campaign could still affect how the brand is perceived.

If the CJEU ultimately agrees with the Advocate General, well-known trademarks could defend themselves beyond the commercial arena, in political contexts. Political parties, activists, or commentators would face stricter limits on using trade marks without permission, whether for satire, criticism, or simply attention, strengthening brand protection.  It is a case that will be closely watched by retailers; looking to protect a recognised brand even against non-commercial uses and non-competitors.

The reality is that political campaigns increasingly borrow from advertising, branding, or even songs from famous artists, using familiar elements, humour, or nostalgia to connect with their audiences. The question is how far the law will allow such uses.  If the CJEU follows the AG opinion, retailers will have a solid mechanism to protect their brand equity and image from dilution and reputational harm.

The upcoming CJEU judgment will be closely watched. If the Court sides with the Advocate General, trade mark owners will gain stronger legal grounds to prevent unauthorised uses in political or ideological contexts. If not, brands may need to prepare for greater exposure in public debates. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that trademarks are increasingly used for humor, criticism, or other purposes, and owners can no longer assume their marks appear only in the marketplace.

This article was written by Trade Mark Director Olivier ten Brink.