On 8 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Inter IKEA Systems BV / Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW et al., held that freedom of expression, including political parody, may in principle constitute a due cause for the use of a reputed trade mark without the proprietor’s consent. However, this is not a free pass. The user must be able to explain why the trade mark was necessary for the message conveyed and demonstrate that its interest outweighs the rights and interests of the trade mark proprietor.
An IKEA-style political plan
In 2022, the political party Vlaams Belang (“VB”) presented a policy programme entitled “IKEA-PLAN – Immigration Can Truly Be Different” (Immigratie Kan Echt Anders). The campaign borrowed recognisable elements of IKEA’s visual identity, including well-known IKEA trade marks and characters reminiscent of IKEA’s assembly instructions. The press conference was subsequently disseminated through social media. IKEA brought legal proceedings, invoking its trade mark rights.
VB argued in its defence that its trade mark infringement could be justified because it had a “due cause”, namely its right to freedom of expression and, more specifically, political parody.
As uncertainty existed regarding this concept, the Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels decided to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU.
Trade mark use vs. other forms of use
The Court first distinguishes between two legal regimes. The harmonised rules on reputed trade marks apply where a sign is used in the course of trade to distinguish goods or services (“trade mark use”). In addition, the Trade Marks Directive allows Member States to provide protection against use other than for distinguishing goods or services (“other use”). For Benelux trade marks, such protection is provided for in Article 2.20(2)(d) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property.
The Court confirms that a non-profit association may act in the course of trade and observes that, although a political programme as such does not constitute trade mark use, certain aspects of promoting such a programme may do so.
The door therefore remains open for the possibility that uses of trade marks occurring entirely within the political sphere may nevertheless qualify as trade mark use.
Can freedom of expression constitute a “due cause” for trade mark infringement?
In the case of reputed trade marks, the proprietor may prohibit any use of the mark by a third party, without due cause, where such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the mark.
The central question in this case was therefore whether freedom of expression, including political expression and political parody, can justify the use of a reputed trade mark without the proprietor’s consent.
The Court answered this question in the affirmative, although it emphasised that a balancing exercise must always be carried out between trade mark rights and freedom of expression.
The Court provides concrete criteria for conducting this balancing exercise:
- The user’s good faith
The user must act in good faith, which may be demonstrated by:
- using the trade mark to convey a message relating to the trade mark itself, its proprietor, the proprietor’s business practices, or its goods or services;
- using it to initiate or contribute to a debate of general public interest;
- using it for other reasons, such as the linguistic meaning of a component of the trade mark or because the mark has become a public cultural reference or part of everyday language, where the use of the mark is necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression in the circumstances concerned.
The Court notes that Vlaams Belang did not use the IKEA trade marks to criticise IKEA itself, but rather in relation to a different subject matter unrelated to IKEA (§95).
- Contribution to the public interest, whether or not in a commercial context
Political expression and contributions to debates of public interest carry significant weight. Consequently, the scope for restricting such expression is limited. However, this does not mean that every use of a trade mark in a political campaign is justified. The court must also examine how the trade mark contributes to the debate and whether the chosen form of expression is necessary to convey the message.
Context remains important. Purely commercial speech may be afforded less weight than political expression. Yet even in the context of political debate, the user must be able to explain why that particular trade mark was employed.
The subject matter of the IKEA-PLAN had no connection with IKEA. Consequently, the reliance on freedom of expression carries less weight than it would if the campaign had been directed at criticising the company or its activities.
- The consequences for the proprietor’s protected trade marks
The trade mark proprietor is not required to tolerate disproportionate harm. The national court must take into account factors such as the intensity, scale and manner of use, the reputation of the trade mark, and the degree of similarity between the sign used and the protected mark.
The risk that the public may believe the trade mark proprietor endorses or supports the political message is also a relevant consideration.
In IKEA’s case, the Court considered those consequences potentially significant. The campaign closely replicated IKEA’s visual identity and was widely disseminated. As a result, it could create the impression that IKEA was associated with VB or its campaign, despite the company’s pursuit of political neutrality.
The use could therefore be detrimental both to the reputation of the trade marks and to the interests of their proprietor.
The balance appears to favour IKEA
The Court does not itself resolve the Belgian dispute. Nevertheless, it leaves little doubt as to its assessment of the circumstances at hand.
VB did not use the IKEA trade marks to criticise IKEA, but rather to enhance the appeal of an unrelated political message. By contrast, there was a genuine risk of reputational harm and unwanted political association for IKEA.
According to the Court, it has therefore not been established that VB’s interest in using the IKEA trade marks outweighs Inter IKEA’s rights and interests. It is for the referring court to verify this conclusively.
Conclusion
For the first time, the judgment expressly confirms that political expression and political parody may constitute a due cause for the use of a reputed trade mark. However, the Court does not create a general parody exception. The user must provide a specific justification and demonstrate that, in the circumstances of the case, freedom of expression should prevail.
The judgment is favourable to trade mark proprietors. Political actors cannot simply appropriate the reputation of a well-known trade mark to amplify a message that bears no connection to the trade mark or the undertaking behind it.
At the same time, there remains room for criticism, satire and parody directed at the trade mark itself, its proprietor, or its activities.
The practical lesson is clear: the reason for the use, its contribution to public debate, and the concrete impact on the trade mark proprietor must all be assessed together. Particularly where a campaign suggests a political affiliation that the trade mark proprietor does not wish to convey, the balance may ultimately tip in favour of the proprietor.
