Celebrity Name Trademark Disputes: Kim vs. Ye

The Rise of Celebrity Name Trademarking:

What's in a name

In the world of celebrities, the answer is simple: money, power, and control. A name isn’t just an identity. A name is a brand, a business, and sometimes, a battleground. Shakespeare once mused that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but in today’s world of celebrity IP, that rose better be trademarked or risk being turned into a perfume line.

In just the past year, millions of trademark applications were filed around the world, proof that names aren’t just personal anymore, they’re profitable. The global licensing industry is booming too, pulling in over $350 billion in revenue.

When your name is worth millions before you can even spell it, a custody dispute gets a whole new trademark twist. Reality TV celebrity Kim Kardashian and Kanye West aren’t just fighting over co-parenting—their latest dispute centres on the most valuable asset their daughter North West possesses: her name. In a world where celebrity children are brands before they’re even teens, the line between protection and profit has never been thinner.

From Gucci to Blue Ivy:

A Trend in Branding Bloodlines

The practice of trademarking names isn’t new. Decades ago, Guccio Gucci was one of the first to secure exclusive rights to his name, setting a precedent that would later be followed by the biggest names in fashion, music, and entertainment. For celebrities, a trademarked name can unlock everything from sponsorship deals and merchandising to fashion collaborations and streaming royalties. Today, for celebrities, trademarking a name is as much about protecting a legacy as it is about preventing others from profiting off their identity. Beyoncé and Jay-Z trademarked Blue Ivy Carter to ensure their daughter’s name wouldn’t be used for commercial gain. The Beckhams also locked down their children’s names for similar reasons. 

The Kardashian-Jenners - reality TV royalty and social media moguls - have built an empire out of branding, registering everything from their kids’ names to viral catchphrases (yes, even Bible). Kylie Jenner once got into a legal catfight with pop icon Kylie Minogue over who was the Kylie. Kim Kardashian had to do some serious damage control when her attempt to trademark “Kimono” for shapewear blew up in her face, forcing a rebrand to SKIMS. 

And let’s not forget Kanye West, who practically lives in trademark offices. From “Yeezy” to the bizarre attempt at trademarking “YEWS,” Ye’s obsession with branding knows no bounds. If there’s a word, a phrase, or a mood he can slap on merch, best believe he’s filing for it. For Kanye, it’s about control, clout, and staying legally louder than everyone else.

In a sense, the Kardashians and Kanye follow the same principles when it comes to securing their brand. But what happens when the fight over a name isn’t just about them, but about their daughter, North West?

The case raises broader questions about trademark law, parental authority, and the ethics of turning children into brands before they’re old enough to have a say in their own identity. When does protecting a child’s future cross the line into commodifying their identity? In the age of celebrity branding, this is no longer a hypothetical debate, it’s a real legal, ethical, and emotional minefield. When names become trademarks before children even understand their full meaning, the balance between safeguarding and exploitation becomes razor-thin.

North West:

Child, Brand, or Both?

On March 15, 2025, Kanye West (Ye) released a new track, “Lonely Roads Still Go to Sunshine,” featuring his daughter North West alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs. While it seemed like a heartfelt moment between father and daughter, the release quickly ignited a fierce battle between Ye and his ex-wife, Kim Kardashian, over something far more significant than music, i.e., North’s name. 

Kim, ever vigilant when it comes to protecting her family’s brand, objected to North’s involvement in the song, citing concerns about Diddy’s ongoing legal issues, including federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, with a trial set for May 2025, and how it might affect North’s public image. She made it clear that as the holder of North’s trademarks, she had the legal right to protect her daughter from potential exploitation, especially at such a young age. 

Ye, however, took to social media, accusing Kim of blocking him from using their daughter’s name commercially. He claimed he had been blindsided by Kim’s actions, feeling as though she had unilaterally secured trademarks without consulting him. Kim, in her defence, explained that she had secured the trademarks for North’s name years ago, not to profit, but to protect her from any exploitation, such as third parties attempting to launch unauthorised merchandise or use her name in influencer scams and pop-up brands targeting children. She emphasised that she wasn’t trying to restrict Ye’s involvement, but rather ensure that North’s name wasn’t used recklessly in a way that could harm her or her future. 

Kim Kardashian, who commands a massive following of over 357 million followers on Instagram, received mixed reactions online, some praising her for protecting her daughter’s image, while others accused her of treating North as a brand asset. In contrast, Kanye West, whose presence on social media has become more sporadic and controversial, has around 404,000 Instagram followers on a relatively inactive account, yet his posts related to the dispute went viral across platforms like X and TikTok, triggering a wave of divided fan commentary.

The public fallout was swift and dramatic. Ye’s fiery statements: "I’m going to war" and "You’ll have to kill me" quickly turned this legal conflict into a media frenzy. 

In a world where celebrity children are often commodified, Kim’s stance highlighted an essential question: How do you protect a child’s identity when their name is worth millions, yet they can’t yet speak for themselves?

Legal Deep Dive:

Who Owns a Child’s Name?

Trademarking a child’s name introduces a unique set of legal challenges, particularly when the child is a minor. U.S. trademark law doesn’t explicitly bar minors from holding trademarks, but due to their lack of contractual capacity under the Contract law (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 14), it’s standard for parents or legal guardians to file trademarks on their behalf. In North West's case, Kim Kardashian took the initiative in 2019 to file trademarks under her daughter's name in categories such as entertainment (Class 41), merchandise (Class 25), and advertising (Class 35). As furthered by Kim, this was done to protect North’s name from potential exploitation, ensuring that it wouldn’t be used without parental consent for commercial ventures. 

The legal mechanism for doing this lies under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), which governs trademark registration in the U.S. While it doesn’t require a trademark holder to be an adult, the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 803.01 mandates that filings on behalf of minors must name the child as the owner and the parent or guardian as the legal representative. This means Kim, acting as North’s guardian, was legally within her rights to file the trademarks.

However, complications arose when it was revealed that some of these trademarks had lapsed due to non-renewal. Under 15 U.S. Code § 1059, trademarks must be renewed between the 5th and 6th year after registration, failing which protection is lost. This lapse presents significant legal issues for Kim and Ye, as the expired trademarks could result in someone else using North’s name commercially, which was precisely what Kim had hoped to avoid.

A key legal question in this dispute is whether one parent can unilaterally trademark a child’s name. In the case of minors, trademark law allows parents to file trademarks on their behalf. However, unilateral decisions, especially when there is joint custody, can lead to disputes, as seen in this case. Ye claims that he was blindsided by Kim’s actions and was not consulted, raising concerns about the need for joint parental agreement in decisions that impact a child’s identity and future. Kim, on the other hand, argues that she acted in North’s best interest, protecting her from unwanted commercial exploitation.

The question remains as to who truly has the right to control and profit from North West’s name, and whether future legal frameworks will address these nuances.

Co-Parenting and Commercial Control

Lanham Act and Minor Trademarks

Under the Lanham Act, U.S. trademark law does not bar minors from owning trademarks. However, because minors can’t enter binding contracts, it’s common for a parent or legal guardian to file and manage the trademark on their behalf. In shared custody arrangements, things get murky. Unless otherwise restricted by a court order or custody agreement, either parent may act in the child’s interest, but ideally, both should be involved in decisions with long-term commercial consequences.

Ye’s argument centres around a lack of consent and transparency, essentially alleging that Kim acted unilaterally, thereby sidelining his parental rights. He could potentially claim that her exclusive control over North’s trademarks violates his right to co-determine their child’s public and commercial identity.

Ye could argue that Kim’s actions undermine his rights as a co-parent. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing of their children. While this was in the context of visitation, the principle could extend to disputes over brand control, especially when the child’s commercial identity is at stake.

Kim, on the other hand, might defend her position using California’s Family Code §§ 6750–6753 (Coogan Law), which gives parents the authority to safeguard their child’s commercial earnings and by extension, control how their name is used in commerce. She might argue that securing the trademarks wasn’t about profit, but prevention of exploitation, especially considering the increasing commercial interest in North as a public figure.

Additionally, California’s right of publicity laws (Civil Code § 3344) reinforce a parent’s right to control the commercial use of their child’s identity. But these laws assume a good-faith representation of the child’s best interests, not a tug-of-war between feuding parents.

What makes this case particularly complex is that trademark rights are not just legal, they’re emotional, reputational, and strategic. And when both parents are moguls with competing visions of their children’s future brands, shared custody doesn’t always mean shared control. 

The Kardashian-West battle isn’t an isolated family drama. It's a lens into a growing legal and ethical dilemma in celebrity culture: 

Should you be able to trademark your child’s name before they can even spell it?

For celebrities, trademarking a child’s name isn’t just a legal formality, it’s a calculated brand strategy. In the beauty industry alone, celebrity-founded brands collectively achieved $1.1 billion in sales from November 2022 to November 2023, reflecting a 57.8% increase compared to the previous year.

Individual celebrity brands have also seen remarkable success. For instance, George Foreman earned over $200 million by licensing his name for an indoor grill. In an industry where perception drives profit, owning a name means owning the narrative, the revenue streams, and the legacy. 

On the surface, it’s about protection, shielding a child from unauthorised use of their identity in merchandise, media, or endorsements. But there’s a more complicated truth beneath: when a child’s name becomes a trademark, they risk becoming a brand before they become a person. The line between safeguarding and commodifying gets thinner, raising unsettling questions about consent, autonomy, and the future of childhood in the spotlight.

Celebrity Name Trademark Disputes: Minor Edition

This issue was brought into sharp focus in the dispute involving Blue Ivy Carter, the daughter of Beyoncé and Jay-Z. When a wedding planner named Veronica Morales opposed the trademark filing, claiming prior use of the name, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with Beyoncé, noting that celebrity children’s names could be protected for legitimate brand development (Veronica Morales v. BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC, 2020). The case affirmed that while minors cannot directly own IP, their parents can act in a fiduciary capacity. Acting in a fiduciary capacity means that parents have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their child, managing their commercial rights, like trademarks, with loyalty, honesty, and care. 

While proactive trademarking can be criticised as overly commercial, failing to protect a child’s public identity can also lead to serious consequences. For instance, Macaulay Culkin, the beloved child star of Home Alone, struggled with overexposure and loss of control over his brand at a young age, leading to a difficult transition into adulthood. His legal battles with his parents over the management of his earnings and public image highlighted how unchecked commercialisation can deeply affect a child’s personal and professional future. Similarly, Lindsay Lohan’s early fame and lack of brand control during her teenage years contributed to a series of public relations missteps, where endorsements and media narratives often ran ahead of her wishes. 

Thus, while trademarking a minor’s name may seem aggressive, it can also be a way of ensuring that children grow into their public identities on their terms, shielded as much as possible from exploitation and mismanagement.

For high-profile parents, the stakes are high. Trademarking a child’s name might be a safeguard against vultures in the market, but it also sets the foundation for how that child’s public life and future autonomy will unfold. 

Future Implications in Celebrity IP Law

As the trademark tug-of-war over North West’s name plays out, Ye may still pursue legal action to challenge Kim Kardashian’s control, arguing that his rights as a co-parent were sidelined.

But ultimately, what matters is not just the outcome for Kim and Kanye, it’s what this dispute could signal for the future. Courts may soon have to grapple with questions about co-parental consent, fiduciary duties, and the boundaries between protection and exploitation when a child’s name becomes a valuable brand.

What we need to watch now is how the courts balance these competing interests: parental authority, a child’s future autonomy, and the commercialisation of identity in an age where fame itself can be an inheritance.

This is not just about trademarks; it’s about how society shapes the next generation of public figures: whether they are protected first as people, or as brands.