On 8 September 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in Case C-298/23, Inter IKEA Systems, that a political party cannot simply invoke freedom of expression to use a trade mark with a reputation. It must give specific reasons for the use and show that they outweigh the owner’s rights. The judgment sets out how trademark law and freedom of expression are balanced when a famous brand is borrowed for a political message. It matters to any owner of a well-known mark in Europe.
Key takeaways
- Invoking freedom of expression is not enough to show “due cause”. The user must explain its grounds and prove that they prevail.
- National courts must balance the owner’s right to property against the user’s freedom of expression; neither right is absolute.
- Key factors: good faith, contribution to a public interest debate, harm to the owner and any false impression of endorsement.
- On the facts, the Court found that the use of the IKEA marks could cause significant detriment to their repute; the Belgian court must verify this.
What happened in the IKEA v Vlaams Belang case?
In 2022 the Belgian party Vlaams Belang presented a plan to reform asylum and immigration policy under the title “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The illustrations used signs corresponding to the IKEA marks and figures like those in IKEA’s assembly instructions, and the press conference was posted on social media, according to the CJEU press release No 119/26.
Inter IKEA sued Vrijheidsfonds, the association that ran the campaign, for infringement. Vrijheidsfonds admitted using the marks without consent but argued that borrowing their reputation was “due cause” under EU law, as an exercise of freedom of expression, including political parody. The Belgian court saw a clash between two fundamental rights of equal rank and asked the CJEU for guidance.
What did the CJEU decide on due cause?
Marks with a reputation are protected against use that, without due cause, takes unfair advantage of or harms their distinctive character or repute. That rule is in Article 9(2)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and Article 10(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Directive, which national laws such as Spain’s Trade Marks Act (Ley 17/2001, Article 34(2)(c)) apply.
The Court noted that EU law does not define “due cause”, although the recitals require respect for freedom of expression. Then it set the limits:
- Mere reliance on freedom of expression does not establish due cause.
- The third party must set out the specific grounds for its use and show that they take precedence over the owner’s rights and interests.
How the CJEU’s trademark freedom of expression test works
The judgment lists the factors a national court should weigh:
| Factor | Points towards due cause | Points against it |
|---|---|---|
| Good faith | The use conveys an idea or opinion about the mark itself, its owner, its business practices or its products | The mark is borrowed only to exploit its fame for an unrelated message |
| Public debate | The use contributes to a debate of general interest | The use adds visibility but nothing to the debate |
| Consequences for the owner | Limited, proportionate impact | Disproportionate detriment, or harm to the very substance of the exclusive right |
| Intensity, extent and method | Occasional, limited use | Intensive, wide use built around the brand’s identity |
| Endorsement | No suggestion that the owner supports the message | Impression of support where the owner is politically neutral or holds opposing values |
Applying these factors, the Court said the use could cause significant detriment to the repute of the IKEA marks. Using them only to strengthen a political message and widen its reach does not appear to outweigh IKEA’s rights. The Belgian court will decide the case.
Where does this leave parody, criticism and activism?
The ruling does not ban political or satirical use of brands. Criticism aimed at the company, its products or its practices is the clearest example of good faith. What it limits is free-riding: taking a famous brand’s look to amplify a message that has nothing to do with the brand. That fits the Court’s earlier ruling in Leidseplein Beheer v Red Bull (C-65/12, 6 February 2014) where it accepted that “due cause” can cover a use made in good faith, assessed on the specific facts.
What this means for your business
- Keep up-to-date evidence of reputation in each key EU market: surveys, market share, advertising spend and press coverage.
- Record your brand’s neutrality or values policy, since a conflict with the message conveyed is now a relevant factor.
- Monitor social media and campaign material, and preserve dated evidence of any misuse.
- Decide on the response case by case. Criticism of your own products calls for a different approach from a free-riding campaign.
Our team for protecting trade marks with a reputation in the EU can review your registrations and evidence, and our IP enforcement and litigation team coordinates action with local counsel where needed.
Where brand owners get this wrong
- Assuming a famous mark wins automatically. The owner still has to prove reputation and harm, and the user can show due cause.
- Reacting to every critical use. Criticism aimed at the brand is the type of use most likely to be protected.
- Having no evidence ready. Reputation must be shown in the relevant territory, and evidence gathered late is often thin.
Frequently asked questions
Can a political party use a famous trade mark in its campaign?
Only if it shows due cause. Following the CJEU judgment of 8 September 2026 in Case C-298/23, the party must explain the specific grounds connected with its freedom of expression and prove they outweigh the owner’s rights. The national court balances both rights, looking at good faith, public debate, harm to the owner and any false impression of endorsement.
Is parody of a trade mark allowed in the EU?
EU trademark legislation contains no specific parody exception. Parody or criticism can amount to due cause, especially when it conveys an opinion about the brand, its owner or its products. Using a famous mark only to attract attention to an unrelated message is far less likely to qualify, as the IKEA judgment shows.
Did IKEA win the case against Vlaams Belang?
The CJEU does not decide the national dispute. It interpreted EU law and indicated that the use of the IKEA marks could cause significant detriment to their repute, and that using them only to strengthen a political message does not appear to prevail over IKEA’s rights. The Belgian court must now apply that guidance and give its ruling.
Can IP Global Guard help us protect a reputed trade mark against misuse?
Yes. We review the registrations and evidence of reputation behind your mark, assess whether a use may have due cause and coordinate the response, from warning letters to court action through qualified local counsel. You deal with one team across Europe, Latin America and Africa.
How IP Global Guard can help protect your brand’s reputation
IP Global Guard, the intellectual property line of META Channel Corporation Limited, manages trademark portfolios and enforcement across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa with one strategy.
Send us the misuse you have found and the marks involved. We will tell you whether due cause is likely to be argued, what evidence you need and which route fits. Talk to our team about your brand.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on its publication date.
Sources
- Court of Justice of the EU, press release No 119/26, judgment in Case C-298/23, Inter IKEA Systems (8 September 2026)
- EUR-Lex, judgment of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries v Red Bull, C-65/12
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark
- BOE, Ley 17/2001, de 7 de diciembre, de Marcas (consolidated text)
