Beyoncé & Jay-Z Lose Bid To Trademark The Name ‘Blue Ivy’


Remember back in February, around the birth of their first born child, Beyoncé and hubby Jay-Z announced that they were planning to trademark the name of their little girl, Blue Ivy? Yeah, well, that is not gonna happen after all. It turns out that an events planning company in Boston, MA called Blue Ivy Events already owns the trademark and a judge ruled that they will keep control of the name, shutting out B-Jay completely from owning the trademark of their daughter’s name. Oh snap.

A Boston event planning company has won a legal battle against one of the biggest stars in the world. Blue Ivy Events in Boston will keep the name that they have operated under since 2009. If the name “Blue Ivy” sounds familiar, it is likely because it is the name singer Beyonce Knowles and her rapper/entrepreneur husband Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter gave to their firstborn child earlier this year. After her child’s birth, the 31-year-old songstress tried to trademark the name, reportedly to begin a line of baby products. It wasn’t long before Blue Ivy Events owner Veronica Alexandra was thrust into the spotlight as she tried to defend her company’s name. On Tuesday, Alexandra won the battle and trademark protection for the name “Blue Ivy.” The ruling means the Carters have no legal rights to keep the name to themselves. There appears to be no hard feelings between the parties. In fact, the Blue Ivy Events website features a picture of hip hop’s royal couple along with a message that reads “Congrats to our soul mate couple with baby Blue Ivy.”

Honestly, I don’t have any strong personal feelings either way. But yes, I agree that the Blue Ivy Events company should retain ownership of the trademark because they owned it first. I totally understand why Beyoncé and Jay-Z would want to own the trademark on their daughter’s name because they would have complete control over how it is used (financially, etc.) but someone else owned the name first. I sincerely doubt this will have any substantial impact on little Miss Blue Ivy Carter. She will likely never even know what a big fuss her cute little name caused.


  • romesf415

    really? that’s so disguting! just let her have her name. why do they have to trademark it? get the f outta here!

    • blaqfury

      They’re not the first celebs to trademark their childs name… and they surely won’t be the last… I can see both sides… I surely wouldn’t want my beautiful baby girl’s name to be a generic brand condom, luckily for people like us, we don’t have to worry about that.

  • Em

    Perhaps if they cared this much they could have run a trademark search prior to naming, and to sue for the name which was already trademarked is trifling behavior.

    • Rebecca


  • onlyme.

    dunno why their so botherd for.. who in the right name would call their kid that anyways.

    • @onlyme. — They’re not worried about other people naming their children Blue Ivy, they’re worried about people selling products using the name Blue Ivy because it might be misconstrued as something being offered by Beyonce and Jay-Z.

    • onlyme.

      ah right, I see what you mean now.. well, maybe if “celebs” named their kids “normal” names they wouldnt have this problem, cause to be fair there are plenty of “celeb” kids out there is stupid names which companies could use for a product name..

  • Ashley

    Good. It’s the name they chose for their kid, but that doesn’t mean they should get to own the name. If they didn’t want people using the name to sell products, then they should have named her something that wasn’t as stand-out as Blue Ivy. Just saying. Nobody would be worried if they named her something “normal.” You don’t see other celebs with outlandish baby names trying to copyright them.

  • Ben@pr

    Reality check.

  • Lauren xx

    B-Jay should become bff with the owner of Blue Ivy Events and help her fight any trademark infringements. THAT’s how they keep their baby’s name safe. :)

  • JCZ

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t this company only win the trademark FOR events planning etc. and they don’t own the trademark for say… a new drink or clothing label? That was just something i read elsewhere yesterday and was under the assumption B & J can still register a TM for other things, and this was just a fight to prevent this company from having the TM?

    Either way I really don’t think there is a great public interest in this kid and its name. The most I’ve heard is the same feedback Gwyneth got calling her kid Apple.

    It just shows this marriage, I mean business agreement is just pathetic.