30 October 2026
Strong trade marks can give businesses significant rights but those rights are not unlimited.
Two recent European decisions illustrate that point from very different directions.
In the European Union, the Court of Justice has considered whether a political party can use IKEA’s famous branding as part of a political campaign and rely on freedom of expression as a defence.
In the United Kingdom, easyGroup attempted to stop an orthotic insole business from using EASYFEET, relying partly on its portfolio of well-known “easy” brands.
Together, the cases provide useful lessons about reputation, descriptive trade marks and the limits of trade mark enforcement.
Can a famous trade mark be used for political parody?
The first case is Inter IKEA Systems BV v Algemeen Vlaams Belang VZW and Others (C-298/23), decided by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 8 September 2026.
The dispute arose after Belgian political party Vlaams Belang promoted an asylum and immigration policy under the name “IKEA-PLAN”, an acronym for “Immigratie Kan Echt Anders”.
The campaign did more than use the word IKEA. It also used visual elements resembling IKEA’s branding, including similar typography, colours and illustrations reminiscent of IKEA assembly instructions.
Inter IKEA commenced trade mark infringement proceedings and the question referred to the CJEU was whether freedom of expression, including political parody, could constitute “due cause” for using a trade mark with a reputation without the owner’s consent.
Freedom of expression can be “due cause”, but it is not automatic
The CJEU confirmed that freedom of expression can, in principle, amount to due cause under EU trade mark law. However, simply describing something as political expression or parody is not enough.
A court must balance the trade mark owner’s intellectual property rights against the third party’s freedom of expression. Relevant factors include the purpose and good faith of the use, whether it contributes to a matter of public interest, how extensively the trade mark has been used, the reputation of the mark, the degree of similarity and whether the use could create an impression that the trade mark owner supports or endorses the political message.
Importantly, the CJEU observed that the IKEA marks appeared to have been used primarily to take advantage of their reputation to reinforce and spread the political message, rather than to comment on IKEA, its products or its commercial activities.
The Court indicated that such use did not appear to outweigh IKEA’s trade mark rights, although the final assessment remains with the Belgian court.
What does the IKEA decision mean for famous brands?
The decision confirms that reputation can give a trade mark owner substantial protection, including against uses outside the owner's immediate field of business. Yet reputation does not create an absolute right to prevent every unauthorised reference to a brand.
Parody, criticism, artistic expression and political speech may still be relevant. The question is why the mark has been used and whether the particular use can be justified when the competing rights are balanced.
That makes context critical.
Can a company claim rights over a family of descriptive trade marks?
The UK decision in easyGroup Ltd v Easyfeetstore OÜ & Ors [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC) approached the limits of trade mark rights from another direction.
easyGroup owns and licenses intellectual property associated with businesses including easyJet and relied on a number of registered “easy” marks.
It brought proceedings against businesses selling orthopaedic and orthotic insoles under the EASYFEET and EASYFEETSTORE names, alleging trade mark infringement and passing off and seeking to invalidate the EASYFEET trade mark.
A significant part of easyGroup’s argument was that consumers recognised a broader family of marks built around the word “easy”.
The IPEC was not persuaded.
A portfolio of similar marks does not automatically create a monopoly
The difficulty for easyGroup was the nature of the shared element.
The court regarded “easy” as a conspicuously descriptive word. While a recognised family of trade marks can increase the likelihood of confusion, the existence of that family must still be proved through evidence of how consumers perceive the marks.
easyGroup had not established that consumers would assume that any brand consisting of “easy” followed by a descriptive or suggestive term belonged to, or was connected with, easyGroup.
The court ultimately dismissed the trade mark infringement and passing off claims, together with easyGroup’s attempt to invalidate the EASYFEET registration.
The case is a useful reminder that owning numerous registrations built around the same word does not necessarily give a business control over every later mark containing that word.
The more descriptive the common element, the more important evidence of acquired distinctiveness, consumer recognition and actual likelihood of confusion becomes.
What should brand owners take from these cases?
Although these decisions arise under European and UK law, they illustrate broader strategic issues for businesses managing international trade mark portfolios.
A famous trade mark can have broad protection, but reputation is not an unlimited right. Courts may still have to consider competing rights and the particular context in which a mark is being used.
Descriptive elements are harder to control broadly. A registration containing a common or descriptive word may be enforceable, but the scope of protection will depend heavily on the mark as a whole and the evidence surrounding consumer perception.
A “family of marks” needs evidence. Owning multiple marks with a common element is different from proving that consumers actually recognise that element as identifying one commercial source.
Enforcement should be evidence-led. Before challenging another brand, it is important to assess the strength of the relevant mark, the similarity of the signs, the relevant goods and services, reputation, consumer perception and the commercial context.
Trade mark rights can be extremely valuable. Understanding where those rights begin and end is just as important as obtaining the registration in the first place.
IP Solved assists businesses with trade mark strategy, portfolio management, clearance and enforcement in Australia and internationally. If you are concerned about another party using your brand, or want to understand how far your existing trade mark rights extend, contact our team.
