Brooklyn Beckham Trade Mark Dispute: What’s in a Name?

The Brooklyn Beckham Trade Mark: UKIPO Registration and Ownership

A search of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) register shows that the trade mark BROOKLYN BECKHAM was filed on 22 December 2016 in classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 25, 28 and 41 by “Victoria Beckham, as parent and guardian of Brooklyn Beckham”.

Now that he is no longer a minor, Brooklyn Beckham is legally capable of owning, managing and enforcing intellectual property rights himself. However, any transfer of registered ownership would need to be formally recorded at the UKIPO, typically using Form TM16.

Why Register a Personal Name as a Trade Mark?

It is common for high‑profile individuals to register their names as trade marks. Well‑known examples include Taylor Swift, Mo Farah and various members of the Beckham family.

A registered personal name allows the proprietor to:

• control and license commercial use of the name;
• negotiate endorsement and merchandising agreements; and
• prevent unauthorised third‑party exploitation of reputation and goodwill.

In principle, anyone may apply to register their name as a trade mark. However, the application must satisfy the statutory requirements, most importantly distinctiveness. The sign must be capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services from those of other undertakings.

Distinctiveness and Class Selection for Celebrity Trade Marks

Another strategic issue is selecting the appropriate classes of goods and services. Taylor Swift, for example, holds registrations in classes 9, 25 and 41, covering music recordings, clothing and entertainment services.

For individuals who have not yet established commercial activities, this choice can be particularly difficult. Over‑broad protection may attract objections or non‑use challenges, while overly narrow protection may limit future commercial opportunities.

Who Can Use “Brooklyn Beckham” Commercially?

At present, the registered proprietor of the BROOKLYN BECKHAM trade mark is Victoria Beckham. Any third party who uses the mark in the course of trade without consent risks committing trade mark infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Brooklyn Beckham himself would potentially be able to rely on the “own name defence” under section 11(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. This permits use of one’s own name, provided that such use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

The Own Name Defence Under the Trade Marks Act 1994

The own name defence is not absolute.

First, the Beckham family owns multiple other registrations, including for BECKHAM alone. Use of “Brooklyn Beckham” in relation to identical or similar goods or services could therefore infringe under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Secondly, given the strong reputation attached to the Beckham name, use could also fall within section 10(3) of the Act. This applies where a similar mark takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of a mark with a reputation, without due cause.

Case law makes clear that use of one’s own name which deliberately exploits the reputation of an existing trade mark, or which causes consumer confusion, may still be infringing.

Risk of Infringement: The Beckham Brand and Trade Mark Reputation

In practical terms, Brooklyn Beckham is of course free to sign his name or use it in a purely personal capacity. However, launching a commercial venture — for example, a fashion brand called Brooklyn Beckham — could potentially infringe existing registered rights.

The strength and breadth of the Beckham brand significantly increases the risk, particularly where commercial activity overlaps with existing protected sectors.

Family Trade Mark Disputes: Lessons from McAlpine v McAlpine

Although no dispute has arisen publicly within the Beckham family, family businesses have clashed over names before.

A well‑known example is Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine plc [2004] EWHC 630 (Ch). Two construction companies founded by different branches of the same family coexisted for decades. When Alfred McAlpine plc dropped “Alfred” from its branding, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd successfully brought a claim in passing off.

The case highlights how even long‑standing family coexistence can unravel where branding decisions shift.

Conclusion: Managing Personal Name Trade Marks and Family Business Risk

Registering a personal name as a trade mark can be extremely valuable, but it raises complex questions of ownership, control and long‑term commercial strategy — particularly where family members or other stakeholders are involved.

Early legal advice is essential to ensure that rights are structured clearly and that future disputes, both commercial and personal, are avoided.