On 8 September 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down its judgment in Case C-298/23 in the proceedings between Inter IKEA Systems BV (“IKEA”) and Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW (“Vlaams Belang”), amongst others. The CJEU clarified the conditions under which freedom of expression, including political parody, may constitute a “due cause” for the unauthorised use of a well-known trademark under Article 9(2)(c) EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) and Article 10(2)(c) and 10(6) of the Trademark Directive (TMD).
What preceded
In 2022, the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang launched a campaign entitled “IKEA-plan – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“Immigration Can Truly Be Different”), presenting its proposals for reform of Belgian asylum and immigration policy. The campaign made extensive use of signs and visual elements closely resembling the well-known IKEA trademarks, including the distinctive typeface, blue-and-yellow colour palette, and IKEA-style assembly-manual imagery. IKEA brought trademark infringement proceedings before the Commercial Court in Brussels. One of the parties involved is Vrijheidsfonds VZW (“Vrijheidsfonds”), a non-profit association that ran the campaign on behalf of Vlaams Belang. Vrijheidsfonds acknowledged the unauthorized use and argued that the popularity of the IKEA trademarks was deliberately exploited to amplify its political message, constituting a “due cause” under EU trademark law. The referring court stayed proceedings and submitted a preliminary reference to the CJEU.
Assessment of the CJEU
Two legal routes
The CJEU distinguishes and confirms two applicable routes that freedom of expression, including political opinion and political parody, can in principle constitute a “due cause”: (i) use in the course of trade for goods or services under Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR / Article 10(2)(c) TMD, and (ii) use other than to distinguish goods or services under Article 10(6) TMD (implemented for Benelux trademarks in Article 2.20(2)(d) BCIP).
Freedom of expression as “due cause” – high threshold The trademark owner must first demonstrate actual infringement of its well-known trademark or at least a serious risk that such infringement will occur in the future. Once that threshold is met, a general invocation of free speech is insufficient. The third party must demonstrate that, in the specific circumstances, its interest in freedom of expression outweighs the exclusive rights of the trademark owner.
The CJEU identified the key criteria for that balancing exercise:
- Intent and good faith: use must be genuinely motivated by the exercise of free expression in good faith, not merely to ride on the coattails of a well-known trademark or to damage it;
- Link to the trademark itself: the strongest justification exists where the trademark is used to express an opinion about the trademark, its owner, or its products/services, or to contribute to a debate of general interest connected to the trademark;
- Public interest: political speech and satire enjoy strong protection – but the debate must have a genuine connection to the trademark as such;
- Consequences for the trademark owner: the intensity, scale, and manner of use, the degree of similarity, and whether use creates the impression that the owner endorses the political message are all relevant.
Importantly, the outcome of the balancing exercise under Article 10(6) TMD need not necessarily be the same as under Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR / Article 10(2)(c) TMD. The CJEU explained that expression outside the commercial domain may enjoy broader protection under the ECHR case law than strictly “commercial” expression.
Application to IKEA/Vlaams Belang
The CJEU provided clear guidance to the referring court. IKEA is an acronym coined from personal names, carrying no independent semantic meaning that could justify its use in this context. Vrijheidsfonds used the trademarks not to comment on IKEA, its products, or its practices but solely to use their reputation in a debate on immigration policy unconnected to the trademarks. The signs were very strongly similar or identical, the use was repeated, and it was disseminated online to a potentially unlimited audience. The CJEU further noted that the public might perceive IKEA as endorsing Vlaams Belang’s message contrary to IKEA’s political neutrality. The CJEU therefore concluded that Vrijheidsfonds’ interest in political expression did not appear to outweigh IKEA’s rights, subject to final verification by the referring court.
Conclusion
This judgment is significant for trademark owners across the EU. The CJEU makes clear that well-known trademarks enjoy robust protection even in the context of political campaigns: freedom of expression cannot be used as a blanket license to free ride on a well-known trademark. The decisive question is whether use of the specific trademark is genuinely necessary to exercise free speech, which will rarely be the case where a trademark is exploited solely for its reputational pull to amplify an unrelated message. Trademark owners confronted with unauthorized use in political or satirical contexts should document the absence of any genuine link between their trademark and the (political) debate, the extent of dissemination, and any reputational harm or false impression of endorsement. Conversely, third parties must be prepared to demonstrate concrete, good-faith reasons why use of the specific trademark was necessary to convey their message.
