CJEU clarifies when freedom of expression may justify the use of a reputed trade mark

On 8 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on C-298/23 Inter IKEA Systems, concerning the use of IKEA's trade marks in a political campaign. The Court held that freedom of expression, including political expression and political parody, may constitute "due cause" for the use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a trade mark with a reputation. However, freedom of expression does not provide an automatic justification. The national court must balance it against the rights and interests of the trade mark proprietor in the circumstances of each case.

The dispute arose after the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang presented a plan to reform asylum and immigration policy under the title IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders (IKEA-Plan – Immigration Really Can Be Different). The plan contained 15 policy proposals presented as being ready to be assembled by the Belgian Government. These were accompanied by illustrations containing signs corresponding to IKEA's trade marks and characters resembling those used in IKEA assembly instructions. A more detailed version of the plan was made available on Vlaams Belang's website, while the press conference presenting it was also referred to on the party's social media channels.

Inter IKEA Systems BV, proprietor of three Benelux IKEA trade marks and an EU word mark registered in 1998, brought infringement proceedings before the Brussels Business Court. Vrijheidsfonds VZW, the association that conducted the campaign on behalf of Vlaams Belang, acknowledged that the IKEA trade marks had been used without Inter IKEA's consent. However, it argued that it had relied on the reputation of those marks to reinforce its political message and increase its dissemination, and that freedom of expression therefore provided "due cause" for their use.

The Belgian court referred the matter to the CJEU, asking whether freedom of expression could constitute due cause under Article 9(2)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and Article 10(2)(c) and (6) of the Trade Mark Directive. These provisions concern the protection of trade marks with a reputation against uses which, without due cause, take unfair advantage of or are detrimental to their distinctive character or reputation.

The CJEU found that the concept of due cause must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with fundamental rights. Trade mark rights are protected as intellectual property under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, while Article 11 protects freedom of expression. Neither right is absolute. Freedom of expression can therefore, in principle, justify the use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a trade mark with a reputation. However, the third party must set out the specific reasons for that use and demonstrate why its freedom of expression should take precedence over the proprietor's rights and interests.

For this assessment, the national court must consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. Particular attention should be paid to the intention of the third party, including whether the sign was used in good faith as part of the exercise of freedom of expression. This may be the case where the use conveys an idea or opinion concerning the trade mark itself, its proprietor, its commercial practices, goods or services, or where it contributes to a debate in the public interest. The court must also consider the consequences for the proprietor, including the intensity and extent of the use, the methods chosen, the reputation of the trade mark and the degree of similarity between the sign and the mark. Another relevant factor is whether the public could gain the impression that the trade mark proprietor agrees with or supports the political message concerned.

Furthemore, the CJEU distinguished between the two forms of protection at issue. If the referring court finds that the IKEA signs were used in the course of trade in relation to goods or services, the use must be assessed under Article 9(2)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and Article 10(2)(c) of the Trade Mark Directive. If those conditions are not met, the court must assess the use, as regards the Benelux marks alone, under the national rules implementing Article 10(6) of the Directive. The Court added that expression outside the commercial sphere may receive broader protection than strictly commercial expression. As a result, the balancing exercise under Article 10(6) need not necessarily produce the same outcome as under Article 9(2)(c) or Article 10(2)(c).

Regarding the IKEA campaign, the CJEU observed that the political debate concerned asylum and immigration policy rather than IKEA, its goods, services or commercial practices. The word "IKEA" was an acronym created from proper names and did not have a semantic meaning that would make its use necessary in that context. Nor did it appear that the IKEA trade marks had become a public cultural reference or part of everyday language. Subject to verification by the referring court, the use therefore appeared to ride on the reputation of the IKEA trade marks in a debate that had no connection with them.

The manner in which the marks were used reinforced that assessment. Vrijheidsfonds did not merely use the word IKEA, but also signs highly similar or identical to the IKEA trade marks, together with typography, colours and visual elements associated with the brand. The signs were used repeatedly and disseminated online, potentially reaching an unlimited audience. The Court considered that such use could cause significant detriment to the repute of the marks and to Inter IKEA's interests, particularly if the public gained the impression that IKEA agreed with or supported the political message.

The CJEU therefore concluded that political expression and political parody may constitute due cause for using a sign identical with, or similar to, a trade mark with a reputation, but only where the balancing exercise shows that freedom of expression takes precedence over the proprietor's rights and interests. In the circumstances described by the referring court, the use of the IKEA trade marks for the sole purpose of taking advantage of their reputation to reinforce an unrelated political message and increase its dissemination did not appear to satisfy that test. However, the final assessment remains with the Belgian court.