Background
Brooklyn Beckham is the eldest child of ex-Spice Girl and fashion designer, Victoria Beckham, and former professional footballer turned media personality, David Beckham. On 20 January 2026, Brooklyn denounced his claim to the Beckham dynasty, releasing a six-part Instagram story that sent shockwaves across social media.
The statement announced a clean break from “Brand Beckham,” an empire currently valued at around £500 million, due to what Brooklyn saw as improper treatment by his parents and their prioritisation of their brand’s preservation over their family’s wellbeing. Brooklyn also claimed he was pressured to sign away rights to his name before his 2022 wedding to Nicola Peltz. Since the wedding, where the bride wore Valentino Haute Couture instead of a gown from Victoria Beckham’s self-named brand, rumours of inter-family conflict have circulated across social media. However, such an outright disownment raises legal questions.
The Law
Any party who uses a mark in the course of trade without consent risks being found of infringement under section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the Act).
It is possible for two entities to jointly own and use the same name. In the case of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Plc¹ two construction companies, founded by two separate branches of the same company coexisted peacefully until Alfred McAlpine Plc attempted to drop “Alfred” from its name. Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd was able to succeed in bringing a claim for the tort of passing off. Following the judgement from Lord Oliver in the ‘Jif Lemon’ case², a party is liable for the tort of passing off should they satisfy the following elements:
- A goodwill or reputation attached to the relevant goods or service
- A misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the claimant and
- Damage to the claimant, because of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation that the source of the defendant’s goods or services is the same as the source of those offered by the claimant.
What’s in a name: who owns Brooklyn Beckham?
In December 2016 (when Brooklyn was 17 years old), Victoria Beckham, as parent and guardian, applied to register all of her children’s names with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) as trade marks. This is common practice for celebrities such as the Beckhams, to avoid third parties exploiting them. Although there is no prohibition in the UK Act which prevents a minor from owning a trade mark, a parent or legal guardian typically manages the trade mark rights of a minor until they reach the age of majority.
So… when can Brooklyn Beckham use his name?
There is no question of whether Brooklyn can use his name in every day life. Additionally, he is no stranger to commercial transactions, as he released a hot sauce brand named Cloud23 in 2024.
In respect to the trade mark, however, what are the limits of his rights as his mother owns the trade mark?
Section 11(2)(a) of the Act allows an individual to use the “own name defence,” provided that use of the individual’s own name does not create consumer confusion and is in pursuit of honest practices. This essentially means that if Brooklyn attempts to break into the industries where the Beckham name is especially prominent, such as fashion and retail, he may run into some trouble.
The own name defence may not always be of assistance, especially if it is argued that by using his full name in a transaction, Brooklyn is launching his success off the already built empire of Brand Beckham in which there is goodwill. If Brooklyn ever uses his name in a commercial deal and it can be shown as an attempt to take advantage of the Beckham family name as a whole, he may not be allowed to continue, either under the Act or the tort of passing off.
Conclusion
So far, Brooklyn has either acted using the name BPB, the shortened form of Brooklyn Peltz Beckham and his name after taking on his wife’s surname, or has not attached his name to any products/brands.
The registered trade mark is set to expire in December of this year, and while Victoria may choose to renew it, she may also extend an olive branch by allowing Brooklyn to own the trade mark registration for his own name. The question arises which decision better preserves the public image of the Beckham family. It is unlikely that this conflict has significantly weakened the power and public opinion of Brand Beckham as the world seems to have moved on fairly quickly and the story no longer circulates social media, besides the odd celebrity endorsement on one side or the other.
Another trade mark battle involving the rights to use a persons own name is playing out between Estée Lauder Companies and Jo Malone, Jo Loves and ITX Limited, which trades as Zara. This will be one to keep an eye on!
Both battles create an interesting discussion for trade mark law, involving the intricacies and underlying importance of securing and maintaining trade marks to use your own name. This can be further complicated in cases involving famous families. Note to self: don’t fall out with your parents if they own your name.
Key take away points
- Public celebrity disputes highlight the often complex implications of trade mark ownership
- There is higher risk for consumer confusion when reputation and goodwill are associated with a mark, such as that which bears a celebrity name
- There are limits to the defences available to an individual attempting to use their own name in a commercial context when it is owned by another party.
References
¹Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Plc [2004] EWHC 630 (Ch)
²Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] RPC 341, Page 342
Joint authors
Gillian Tetzlaff – work experience candidate
Claire Bothma – Trade Mark Attorney
