Beyoncé is laying down the law in the battle with a wedding planner over “Blue Ivy”, calling her daughter a “cultural icon” in court documents.
According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Beyoncé is firing back at Veronica Morales in the trademark battle for “Blue Ivy”.
Beyoncé and Morales have been locked in a dispute over the trademark for years. Bey has been trying to get the trademark to her daughter’s name, but Morales claims she had already been using it. They are scheduled to head to trial in the case.
In the newly filed documents, Beyoncé argues her case for being granted the trademark. She even throws a little shade towards Morales in the process.
Beyoncé says Morales claim that, “that consumers are likely to be confused between a boutique wedding event planning business and Blue Ivy Carter, the daughter of two of the most famous performers in the world, is frivolous and should be refused in its entirety.” Beyoncé points out her trademark application is for “Blue Ivy Carter” NOT “Blue Ivy”.
She says, “the presence of the word “CARTER” ties the commercial impression of BGK’s Mark to the celebrity Blue Ivy Carter rather than Opposer’s regional event planning business.”
Beyoncé says Morales runs a “small business, with just three regional offices and a handful of employees”, with weak online presence and poorly subscribed social media accounts.
She accuses Morales of having, “exhibited a pattern and practice of affirmatively attempting to connect its brand with Blue Ivy Carter to increase its exposure and drum up business.”
Bey points to interviews Morales gave following her daughter’s birth. In the radio interviews, she talked about her business receiving more attention. She even admitted reaching out to Beyoncé’s agent. Beyoncé says Morales also had a sale on Blue Ivy’s birthday.
Beyoncé denies Morales claim she has no intention to use the trademark. She says, “Indeed, the circumstantial evidence, including Blue Ivy Carter’s fame, her interest in fashion and design, and her familial relationship with two of the most famous performers in the world all support BGK’s intent to use the BLUE IVY CATER trademark in connection with building a brand consistent with Blue Ivy Carter’s interests and skills.”
She adds, “Blue Ivy Carter is a cultural icon who has been described as a “mini style star” and has been celebrated for her “fashion moments” overs the years. Her life and activities are followed extensively by the media and the public.”
Further, “Most significantly, Blue Ivy Carter has achieved a significant amount of fame, particularly at such a young age. She also has a noted and well-chronicled interest in fashion. Given these factors, Blue Ivy Carter is capable of and interested in becoming the face of a brand. For this reason, the factual context demonstrates that BGK filed the Application with the intent to build a brand around Blue Ivy Carter and her public reputation and renown.”
The singer accuses Morales of harassing her throughout the battle and even trying to intimidate her with document demands.
She states, “Following initiation of these proceedings, Opposer commenced a campaign of harassment against Applicant, serving burdensome discovery requests frequently targeted at unnecessary and personal information regarding Mrs. Carter.”. She claims Morales requested her personal address and refused to keep the location and date of a deposition confidential.
Beyoncé wants Morales shut down and her trademark for “Blue Ivy Carter” approved.
The whole situation started back in 2017, when Beyoncé filed to lock down the rights to the trademark “Blue Ivy Carter” to make sure she had the exclusive use of her daughter’s name.
Soon after, Veronica Morales, the owner of a wedding planning company named Blue Ivy, filed to oppose the singer’s application, demanding the pop star not allowed to trademark the name.
Morales’ company had been around three years before Beyoncé’s daughter was born.
She pointed out in her opposition that Jay-Z even spoke to Vanity Fair admitting they had no intention of using the Blue Ivy mark to sell products but wanted to prevent others from profiting.
The battle has been going on for nearly two years and turned particularly nasty last year with Beyoncé accusing Morales of offering to sell her company for $10 million to the singer. Morales denied the allegations.
Earlier this year, Morales accused Beyoncé of refusing to turn over private communications with Jay-Z and her mother, Tina Knowles.
Morales had requested a list of documents and communications from Beyoncé in their trademark battle.
Morales wanted Beyoncé to turn over all documents showing any evidence she planned to actually use the trademark “Blue Ivy” (since Morales doesn’t believe the singer ever planned to use it) and any samples of her intent to use the name.
Morales also sought all communications with Jay-Z relating to their 2016 trademark application, any communications of her or Jay-Z knowing about “Blue Ivy” before their daughter was born in February 2012, and any records of convos with Bey and her mother about the mark.
Beyoncé had refused to hand over the documents and she demanded a protective order be entered which would prohibit Morales or her legal team from leaking the confidential information.
Morales recently accused Beyoncé of committing fraud when she filed out the trademark application.