When Politics Meets IKEA: Can Freedom of Expression Override Trademark Rights?
The CJEU rules that political parody may justify the use of a reputed trademark—but freedom of expression is not a free pass.
On 8 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Inter IKEA Systems BV v Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW and Others (Case C-298/23), addressing the relationship between the protection of reputed trademarks and freedom of expression.
The Court confirmed that political expression, including political parody, may constitute “due cause” for using a reputed trademark without its proprietor’s consent. However, such use must be assessed through a case-by-case balancing of the competing rights and interests.
Background: IKEA’s Trademarks in a Political Campaign
In 2022, the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang launched a campaign concerning asylum and immigration policy under the title “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“IKEA Plan – Immigration Can Really Be Different”).
The campaign incorporated signs identical or highly similar to IKEA’s reputed trademarks, alongside visual elements resembling IKEA’s assembly instructions. The campaign materials were also disseminated through social media.
Inter IKEA Systems, proprietor of the relevant EU and Benelux trademarks, initiated infringement proceedings. The defendants argued that the use was justified by freedom of expression, particularly political expression and parody.
The Belgian court referred questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of “due cause” in the context of reputed trademark protection.
The CJEU’s Ruling
1. Political expression may constitute “due cause”
Under Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 10(2)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, reputed trademarks benefit from enhanced protection against uses that, without due cause, take unfair advantage of or are detrimental to their distinctive character or reputation.
The CJEU confirmed that freedom of expression, including political expression and parody, may constitute “due cause” within the meaning of these provisions.
However, invoking freedom of expression does not automatically justify the use of another party’s reputed trademark. The reasons relied upon by the third party must be sufficiently compelling to outweigh the proprietor’s rights and legitimate interests.
2. A case-by-case balancing of fundamental rights is required
The Court held that national courts must balance freedom of expression, protected by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, against the trademark proprietor’s right to property under Article 17.
This assessment must take account of all relevant circumstances, including:
- The purpose and context of the use, particularly its contribution to a debate of general interest;
- The commercial or non-commercial nature of the use and whether the third party acted in good faith;
- The extent, intensity and manner of the use;
- The potential harm to the trademark’s reputation and the proprietor’s legitimate interests; and
- Whether the public might mistakenly perceive the trademark proprietor as endorsing or supporting the political message.
Neither the political nature of the message nor its potentially parodic character is, in itself, decisive.
3. The IKEA campaign raises particular concerns
In examining the circumstances described by the referring court, the CJEU noted the close resemblance between the campaign materials and IKEA’s reputed trademarks, as well as the extent and manner of their use.
The Court indicated that where the use of a reputed trademark serves merely to exploit its reputation to amplify a political message, the interests relied upon under freedom of expression may not outweigh those of the proprietor.
Nevertheless, the CJEU did not make the final infringement determination. That assessment remains for the Belgian court, applying the principles established by the judgment to the facts of the case.
Practical Implications for Trademark Proprietors
The judgment provides important guidance for brand owners facing unauthorised uses of their trademarks in political or public-interest campaigns.
First, political or non-commercial use is not automatically exempt from trademark protection. The fact that a sign is used to communicate a political message does not, by itself, establish “due cause”.
Second, the context of the use is decisive. Trademark proprietors should assess whether the use genuinely contributes to political expression or primarily exploits the recognition and reputation of their brands.
Third, evidence remains essential. In potential enforcement actions, proprietors should document the reputation of their trademarks, the nature and extent of the unauthorised use, any risk of perceived endorsement, and the resulting or potential harm to their legitimate interests.
At the same time, enforcement decisions should account for the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, particularly in political debate.
Conclusion
The IKEA v. Vlaams Belang judgment confirms that freedom of political expression may provide “due cause” for the use of a reputed trademark, but it does not create a general exception for political campaigns or parody.
By requiring a concrete balancing of fundamental rights, the CJEU provides a framework that protects legitimate political expression while preserving the ability of trademark proprietors to challenge unjustified exploitation of their brands.Nouveau paragraphe
Maysan Menny (Trainee lawyer)
Christine Chai (Attorney-at-Law, Managing Partner)
