CJEU clarifies when political expression can justify use of famous trademarks

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the circumstances in which freedom of political expression may constitute “due cause” for the unauthorized use of a reputed trademark, following a dispute over IKEA branding used in a Belgian political campaign.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that freedom of expression, including political expression and parody, can in principle constitute “due cause” for the use of a sign identical or similar to a trademark with a reputation.

However, the Court made clear that simply invoking freedom of expression is not sufficient. A third party must demonstrate that its freedom of expression takes precedence, in the circumstances of the case, over the rights and interests of the trademark proprietor.

The judgment, delivered September 8, 2026, in Inter IKEA Systems BV v. Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW and Others (Case C-298/23), concerns the use of IKEA trademarks and imagery by Vrijheidsfonds, an association that conducted a political campaign in the name and on behalf of Belgian political party Vlaams Belang.

The IKEA-PLAN

The dispute arose after Vlaams Belang publicly presented a political plan on November 14, 2022, titled “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“IKEA-Plan – Immigration Really Can Be Different”).

The plan concerned the reform of Belgian asylum and immigration policy and contained 15 policy proposals. The accompanying material used signs corresponding to IKEA trademarks and characters resembling those used in IKEA product assembly instructions.

The presentation was also promoted through Vlaams Belang’s social-media channels, and a more detailed version of the plan was made available on the party’s website.

Inter IKEA Systems, which owns the relevant IKEA trademarks, subsequently brought infringement proceedings before the Brussels Business Court.

The proceedings concerned, among others, Vrijheidsfonds, which the referring court found had conducted the Vlaams Belang campaign in the name and on behalf of the party or its representatives. Vrijheidsfonds acknowledged using the IKEA trademarks without Inter IKEA’s consent.

Vrijheidsfonds argued that its use of the reputation of the IKEA trademarks to reinforce and increase the dissemination of its political message constituted “due cause.” The Belgian court referred questions to the CJEU concerning the relationship between that concept and freedom of expression, including political speech and political parody.

Freedom of expression can constitute “due cause”

The CJEU held that the rights of a trademark proprietor protected by Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights may be limited by the need to protect freedom of expression under Article 11 of the Charter.

Consequently, freedom of expression may, in principle, constitute “due cause” under Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 10(2)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436.

The Court nevertheless emphasized that the mere reliance on freedom of expression is not enough.

A third party using a sign identical or similar to a reputed trademark must identify the specific grounds for that use in connection with its exercise of freedom of expression and demonstrate that those grounds take precedence over the trademark proprietor’s rights and interests.

The national court must therefore balance the trademark proprietor’s property rights and interests against the third party’s freedom of expression, with neither right being absolute.

Political parody remains relevant

The judgment is significant because the CJEU expressly recognized political opinions and political parody as potentially falling within the scope of freedom of expression capable of constituting “due cause.”

The Court said that the assessment must take account of all the circumstances of the individual case. Relevant factors include whether the third party acted in good faith, whether the use contributes to a debate in the public interest and whether the expression takes place in a strictly commercial context.

The Court also noted that political speech and matters of public interest receive particularly strong protection under Article 11 of the Charter, while referring to European Court of Human Rights case law concerning political speech and satire. The form of the expression can therefore matter. The CJEU specifically noted that parody is one form of satire and that interference with such expression must be examined with particular care.

Balancing the interests

The CJEU also identified a number of factors that national courts should consider when balancing the competing rights.

These include:

• the intention of the third party and whether the use was made in good faith;
• whether the expression contributes to a debate in the public interest;
• whether the expression occurs in a strictly commercial context;
• the consequences for the trademark proprietor;
• the intensity, extent and methods of the use;
• the reputation of the trademark;
• the degree of similarity between the sign and the trademark; and
• whether the use could create the impression that the trademark proprietor agrees with or supports the political message.

The Court emphasized that where a third party successfully establishes “due cause,” the trademark proprietor may have to tolerate some detriment resulting from the use.

However, the proprietor cannot be required to tolerate use causing disproportionate detriment or use that adversely affects the substance of the exclusive rights conferred by the trademark.

IKEA use did not appear to have “due cause”

Turning to the circumstances of the IKEA dispute, the CJEU observed that the IKEA trademarks had been used in a debate concerning asylum and immigration policy.

The Court accepted that asylum and immigration policy may constitute a matter of public interest. However, it noted that, subject to verification by the referring court, that debate did not appear to have a connection with the IKEA trademarks themselves and that the use of the marks appeared instead to ride on their reputation.

The Court also highlighted the extent of the use. The signs were highly similar or even identical to the IKEA trademarks, with several visual elements referring clearly to the marks, including similar typography and color combinations. The material was used repeatedly and disseminated online, potentially reaching an unlimited audience.

The Court further noted that the use could create an impression that IKEA agreed with or supported the political message, particularly given the company’s position of political neutrality. That issue also remains subject to verification by the Belgian court. Against that background, the Court stated that the use may cause significant detriment to the reputation of the IKEA trademarks and to the interests of their proprietor.

It further held that it did not appear that the use of the marks by Vrijheidsfonds, for the purpose of taking advantage of their reputation to reinforce its political message and increase its dissemination, took precedence over Inter IKEA’s rights and interests and could therefore be classified as having “due cause.”

However, the Court expressly left that assessment to the referring court to verify in light of all the relevant circumstances.

No final infringement ruling

Importantly, the CJEU did not itself make a final finding of trademark infringement. The proceedings came before the CJEU as a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Business Court. The CJEU interpreted the relevant EU law, while the Belgian court remains responsible for applying that interpretation to the facts of the underlying dispute.

The Court’s ruling applies to Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 10(2)(c) and Article 10(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, read in conjunction with Articles 11 and 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Court also clarified that the balancing exercise under Article 10(6), concerning additional protection for national trademarks with a reputation, may produce a different result from the assessment under Article 10(2)(c), although the same fundamental rights and relevant circumstances must be considered.

Implications for political use of famous brands

The judgment provides important guidance for disputes involving reputed trademarks and expressive uses of brands.

For trademark owners, the decision confirms that the protection afforded to a reputed mark does not disappear simply because a third party uses it in a political context. At the same time, trademark rights must be balanced against freedom of expression, particularly where a use involves political speech, public-interest debate, or parody.

For political parties and other organizations, the judgment indicates that political expression does not automatically provide “due cause” for using a famous trademark. The distinction will depend heavily on why the mark was used, how it was used, and what effect the use has on the trademark proprietor.

In the IKEA dispute, the CJEU’s reasoning places particular weight on the apparent use of IKEA’s reputation to amplify a political message that was unrelated to IKEA itself, together with the extensive and highly similar use of the marks and the potential for the public to perceive an association between IKEA and the political message. The ruling therefore provides a significant new framework for assessing the boundary between trademark protection and political expression, while leaving the final outcome of the IKEA dispute to the Belgian courts.

← Back to News