The Belgian political party Vlaams Belang used the well-known IKEA trademark and IKEA drawings in a parody to draw attention to its anti-immigration position: “IKEA-PLAN. Immigration – There is another way.”

Is this an infringement of IKEA’s EU trademark? That requires use as a trademark, meaning that Vlaams Belang uses the mark to designate its own product or service. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that this also includes advertising for a political party programme. Vlaams Belang uses the IKEA trademark specifically to take advantage of the mark’s reputation, making its own political message stand out even more. Here, that political freedom of expression carries less weight than IKEA’s interest in being able to invoke its trademark rights. Vlaams Belang therefore lacks “due cause” for this use of the IKEA trademark.

A political parody can provide due cause for using someone else’s trademark. Courts strike a fair balance, case by case, between conflicting fundamental rights: freedom of expression versus the right to property. In doing so, the intent of the user of the mark is relevant: is he acting in good faith? That may be the case if the message relates to the trademark, its proprietor, or its goods or services, or if the mark is used in a debate of public interest.

The specific circumstances of the case are always taken into account. According to the Court, the trademark use in this instance may give the impression that IKEA, as trademark proprietor, supports Vlaams Belang’s political message. Particularly where the proprietor maintains a neutral stance toward this message (which applies to IKEA) or disagrees with it, this can support its interest taking action against the use. We saw a similar balancing exercise years ago in the Deckmyn judgment, when Vlaams Belang produced an unlawful parody of Suske en Wiske criticizing a politician for allegedly spending too much money on immigrants (on the left the original, on the right the parody):

IKEA will therefore likely prevail (the Belgian court has yet to render a final judgment). A link to IKEA is virtually non-existent, and IKEA was solely used to draw additional attention. That goes too far. Vlaams Belang may still contend that this genuinely concerns a general debate in the public interest, but even then, IKEA has a clear interest in preventing the public from believing that it agrees with this anti-immigration message.