Do companies have to accept if their brand logo is used for political purposes? In the legal dispute between Inter Ikea Systems and Vrijheidsfonds, an association that ran a campaign for the right-wing extremist party Vlaams Belang, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Tuesday strengthened Ikea's position.
In 2022, the right-wing extremist party Vlaams Belang presented its ideas for a more restrictive immigration and asylum policy at a press conference. The title of the plan: “IKEA Plan – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (IKEA Plan – Immigration actually works differently). According to a notice from the ECJ, the presentation of the proposals included, among other things, images with signs that had a close resemblance to Ikea brands. This also applied to figures that were visually very close to those in the assembly instructions for Ikea products.
Ikea didn't want to put up with that. “We try to maintain a politically neutral stance and we do not want our brand to be used to make people believe that we support certain positions,” The Brussels Times newspaper quoted a company spokesman as saying in November 2022.
Inter Ikea, owner of the trademarks used, filed an infringement lawsuit against Vrijheidsfonds in the Belgian courts. This is the association that implemented the campaign for the party. As a trademark owner, you could assert various claims against Vrijheidsfonds. In addition to removal and possible compensation, the request to immediately cease and desist is the first step in such a dispute.
The trademark owner can demand that the person infringing the trademark cease further use. This is particularly true if there is a risk of repetition. However, under Belgian law, a single infringement of a Benelux trademark is not necessarily sufficient to demand injunctive relief. In the dispute, Ikea had to demonstrate above all that continued or repeated behavior is to be expected if an injunction is sought.
The association explained to the national judges in Belgium that it had used the Ikea trademarks in a humorous manner - without Ikea's consent. However, it was sufficiently pointed out that Ikea was neither part of the plan nor had it expressed any sympathy for it. The national court took the position that there was a conflict between equal fundamental rights, namely between the right to property and the right to freedom of expression. The case therefore went to the ECJ.
Tuesday's ruling now states: The use of the Ikea brands in the presentation is likely to "significantly impair the appreciation of these brands and the interests of their owner." However, the national court in Belgium has to decide in the final instance.
From Ikea's perspective, would it have been tactically wiser to forego a lawsuit? Legal action means additional attention for the party, which could damage the reputation of the brands. “Resistance can be dangerous,” says Jonas Kratz, who works as a strategist at Jung von Matt, one of the most important German advertising agencies. In the industry, ducking instead of reacting is considered an effective remedy in such cases.
But Kratz sees the Ikea case a little differently: “If a party is really important, it is strategically wiser to react to it.” Vlaams Belang received almost 14 percent of the vote in the last Belgian parliamentary election in 2024 and came in second place. “Ikea cannot simply ignore such abuse of its brand,” says Kratz.
Martin Fassnacht sees it similarly. The professor of strategy and marketing at the Otto Beisheim School of Management warns: “Unfortunately, it cannot be ruled out that a position against the right would have damaged Ikea economically.” As the global market leader in furniture retail, Ikea relies on appealing to as many people as possible. Fassnacht expects that as right-wing populism grows, companies and brands will increasingly feel forced to remain politically neutral. In his view, this also applies to Germany, especially after the AfD's election victory in Saxony-Anhalt last Sunday.
