Introduction
On 13 November 2025, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C‑298/23, Inter IKEA Systems BV v. Vrijheidsfonds VZW and others. The case concerns the use of IKEA’s well‑known trade marks in a political campaign run for the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang and, more broadly, how far political actors can go in reusing famous brands under the banner of freedom of expression.
The Opinion is particularly relevant for brand owners whose marks enjoy a reputation in the EU and who may be exposed to unexpected use of their branding in highly polarised political debates.
Background
In November 2022, the non‑profit organisation Vrijheidsfonds launched the “IKEA‑PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” campaign for Vlaams Belang. The campaign reused IKEA’s trade marks and key visual elements (such as assembly‑style illustrations and IKEA‑like imagery) to present Vlaams Belang’s political proposals.
IKEA brought trade mark infringement proceedings, arguing that its marks had been used without consent to amplify Vlaams Belang’s message and increase its visibility. The defendants did not dispute the use but invoked “due cause” based on freedom of political expression under EU trade mark law.
The Brussels Business Court asked the EU Court of Justice, in essence, whether freedom of expression – and in particular political speech and parody – can amount to “due cause” for using a sign identical or similar to a reputed trade mark, and which criteria must be taken into account when balancing trade mark rights against freedom of expression.
Key legal issues and the AG’s approach
1. Scope of EU trade mark rules (Article 10(2)(c) and 10(6) EUTMD, Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR)
The AG explains that EU trade mark law primarily targets use of a sign “in relation to goods or services”. For uses that fall outside this commercial sphere, such as certain purely political uses, protection is not fully harmonised at EU level and remains partly a matter for national law.
EU Member States can choose to extend protection to use of a sign “other than use for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services” (for example, purely reputational uses) and may or may not build the notion of “due cause” into those national rules. For instance, the Benelux legislator has implemented this option in Article 2.20.2(d) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP). Where national law mirrors the EU concepts, EU case‑law can guide the assessment.
2. Was the political use “in relation to goods or services”?
The AG considers that political campaigns can be qualified as a “service”, but a political programme as such is not a good or a service. It is primarily informative: it sets out ideas, objectives and policy proposals. On that basis, merely announcing or promoting a political programme under a sign that evokes a reputed trade mark does not automatically amount to “use in relation to goods or services” in the sense of EU trade mark law.
The AG notes that this condition might be met where the sign is used, for example, on merchandise distributed to supporters, or to promote and organise events in a way that links the sign to commercial or quasi‑commercial activities of the political actor. In the present case, however, the IKEA marks served only to promote and differentiate Vlaams Belang’s political message, without any connection to IKEA’s goods or services. While the final assessment is for the referring court, the AG’s view is that this specific use cannot be characterised as use “in relation to goods or services” under EU trade mark rules.
3. “Due cause” and freedom of expression
Beyond the commercial‑use question, the Opinion also addresses whether freedom of expression can provide “due cause” for using a reputed trade mark without consent.
The AG accepts that “due cause” can, in principle, safeguard freedom of expression in trade mark law, including political speech. However, he sets strict boundaries: there is no due cause (i) when the use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the trade mark; and (ii) the political expression does not actually target the trade mark owner, the mark itself, or the products and services offered under that mark.
In other words, “due cause” may protect critical, satirical or artistic uses that engage with the brand, but not uses that simply exploit the brand’s pulling power to promote unrelated messages.
Applied to the facts, the AG finds that Vlaams Belang and Vrijheidsfonds were not seeking to comment on or criticise IKEA or its products. Instead, they used IKEA’s reputation and visual codes as a communication tool to make their own campaign more attractive and memorable. This, in the AG’s view, is “riding in the wake” of a reputed trade mark and cannot be justified by freedom of expression alone.
Comment
The AG proposes that while the concept of “due cause” can serve as a mechanism to protect freedom of expression in trade mark law, it does not justify the use of a well‑known trade mark in a political campaign unless the expression directly concerns the trade mark, its proprietor, or its products. The mere amplification of a political message by leveraging the reputation of a trade mark does not constitute due cause.
In practical terms, political actors cannot freely use famous trade marks to gain attention. Even with broad protection for political speech, exploiting a company’s reputation for political messaging carries legal risks. While trade mark regulations consider fundamental rights, they do not allow unfair use or harm to a brand’s reputation, especially if the speech is unrelated to the brand.
This recalls the Benelux ‘Dom Perignon’ case (A 2018/1/8, Hennessy / Cedric Art), where the Benelux Court of Justice held in a judgment of 14 October 2019 that use of a trade mark “other than for distinguishing goods or services” within the meaning of Article 2.20.2(d) BCIP (such as for artistic expression) can constitute due cause, where the artistic expression is the original result of a creative design process which does not aim to harm the trade mark or its owner.
Although the final decision rests with the EU Court of Justice, the Opinion offers a clear and pragmatic framework for balancing trade mark rights and political expression in the EU.
From a business perspective, this approach is welcome and not surprising. It confirms that strong brands cannot be turned into unwilling sponsors or amplifiers of political campaigns that have nothing to do with them. This protects the significant investment that companies make in building and maintaining their reputation, while still leaving room for genuine criticism, parody or artistic expression that actually targets the brand.
For any questions or assistance, please reach out to our Intellectual Property Team | IP@simontbraun.eu – +32 (0)2 543 70 80
***
This newsletter is not a legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this newsletter.