This update follows our previous article Political parody of a famous brand: IKEA v Algemeen Vlaams Belang on the Advocate General’s opinion. IKEA, the famous flat-pack furniture company, brought an infringement action against the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang for parodying its name, logo, and colour scheme in an anti-immigration campaign, titled “IKEA Plan” (IKEA being an acronym for “Immigratie Kan Echt Anders”/“immigration truly can be different”). 

The association behind the campaign acknowledged that it had used IKEA’s trade marks without consent but argued that it had “due cause” under freedom of expression, namely, the freedom to express political opinions. The Belgian court referred the matter to the CJEU in view of the apparent conflict between two fundamental rights of the same rank.

The CJEU noted that “due cause” is not defined in EU legislation, but that a third party’s freedom of expression may, in principle, constitute due cause for using a trade mark with a reputation. 
Nevertheless, the national court must strike a balance between the trade mark proprietor’s right to property and the third party’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s balancing test

The court set out several factors to consider when weighing up the competing rights.

First, the national court must examine the third party’s intention and whether it is exercising its freedom of expression in good faith. Good faith may involve, for example, expressing an idea or opinion relating to the trade mark, the proprietor, its commercial practices, or its goods and services.

Second, the national court should consider whether the use of the trade mark contributes to a debate of public interest.

Third, the court must consider the consequences for the proprietor, in particular, whether the use causes disproportionate harm.

Relevant factors include the extent, methods and intensity of the third-party use, the degree of reputation of the mark and the similarity between the sign and the mark, and whether the use may give the impression that the proprietor agrees with or supports the political message, especially if the proprietor is politically neutral or its values are incompatible with that message.

Concluding comments

Here, the court indicated that the use of the IKEA trade marks was likely to cause significant detriment to the proprietor. Although immigration policy is a matter of public interest, the campaign’s message had no connection with IKEA, its goods or commercial practices. Regarding intention, the third party appears to have used the IKEA marks solely to take advantage of their reputation, to reinforce a political message and increase its dissemination. In these circumstances, the court considered that freedom of expression should not take precedence over the proprietor’s rights. However, it is for the referring court to apply each of the factors and verify this.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: European Union
Decision level: CJEU
Parties: Inter IKEA Systems BV v Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW
Date: 08 September 2026
Citation: C-298/23
Decision: https://dycip.com/c-298-23