Can a political party borrow IKEA’s brand for a campaign poster?

A recent Court of Justice of the EU ruling in Inter IKEA Systems (C-298/23) tackles a question that comes up more often than you’d think: can a famous trade mark be used to make a political point, and does freedom of expression give someone “due cause” to do it?

The case arose when a Belgian political party launched an “IKEA-PLAN” immigration policy at a press conference, using imagery styled after IKEA’s assembly instructions and trade marks, despite the speaker insisting the plan had nothing to do with the retailer. IKEA sued for trade mark infringement, and the Brussels Business Court referred questions to the CJEU on how “due cause” should be interpreted when a trade mark with a reputation is used this way.

What the court said

The CJEU confirmed that relying on freedom of expression isn’t enough on its own. Instead, courts need to weigh the trade mark owner’s rights against the third party’s free speech interests, looking at things like whether the use was in good faith, whether it fed a genuine public interest debate, whether it had a satirical character, and how much damage it caused to the mark’s reputation.

Applying this to IKEA’s case, the court pointed out that “IKEA” has no independent meaning that would justify third-party use, the political debate had nothing to do with IKEA or its products, and the party used IKEA’s distinctive font, colours and style repeatedly, both at the press conference and online. It also couldn’t rule out that people might think IKEA was endorsing the political message. On balance, the court suggested the defendant’s interests didn’t outweigh IKEA’s, though the final call rests with the national court.

The court also confirmed that Belgium’s broader national protection for reputed marks (under Article 10(6) of the Trade Mark Directive) doesn’t require commercial use at all, and that non-commercial speech gets even more protection than commercial speech, so the balancing exercise might land differently depending on which provision applies.

Why this matters

The commentary on the ruling makes a sharp practical point: even a legal win here could be a political loss. The case gave the political party a bigger platform than it would otherwise have had, and a court victory for IKEA might not stop others from doing the same thing, it could even encourage it. That’s worth thinking about before deciding whether to sue at all, particularly for a one-off use. The piece also flags criminal complaints against the individuals involved as a possible deterrent, and notes that enforcement will look different across the EU depending on whether a Member State has implemented the broader Article 10(6) protection, contrasting this with Germany’s approach of protecting personality rights of companies against this kind of political use.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the CJEU has confirmed that famous trade marks aren’t automatically off-limits for political campaigning, but “due cause” is a genuine balancing exercise rather than a box freedom of expression ticks automatically. A defendant has to show specific grounds for the use and demonstrate those grounds outweigh the mark owner’s interests, taking into account things like good faith, whether the use actually contributes to a public interest debate, its satirical character, and the harm caused to the mark’s distinctiveness and reputation.

For brand owners, the practical takeaway is less about the legal test and more about strategy: winning the case doesn’t necessarily win the argument, and litigation can hand a political actor exactly the platform the brand owner wanted to avoid. Before enforcing, it’s worth weighing whether a lawsuit (or alternatives like a criminal complaint against the individuals involved) actually serves the brand’s interests, especially where the use is a one-off rather than a sustained campaign.

More broadly, the decision is a reminder that trade mark protection has real limits once use moves outside the commercial sphere and away from goods and services, and that how well-protected a mark is against this kind of use can still vary significantly between EU Member States depending on how far they’ve implemented the broader national protections available under the Trade Mark Directive.