A bitter trademark dispute over the Beckham name has emerged as a key factor in the growing rift between the Beckhams and their son Brooklyn Beckham and his wife Nicola Peltz, highlighting how intellectual property law can collide with family relationships when a surname becomes a commercial asset.
At the heart of the dispute is control over the Beckham name, which has long been trademarked in several commercial categories. While the dispute was publicly portrayed as a deeply personal conflict within the family, legal experts also see it as a prime example of how brand ownership can override individual autonomy in business.
Hannah Finster, intellectual property lawyer at Marks & Clerk, said the situation highlights a fundamental principle of trademark law.
“Brand ownership goes beyond personal identity in retail,” she said. “The Beckham family has strategically protected the ‘BECKHAM’ brand across multiple classes of goods and services since 2000. This is not just a family drama, it is a clear example of brand strategy colliding with personal autonomy.”
Finster said that legally, even being born with a famous last name doesn’t automatically give you the right to commercialize it. “Brooklyn Beckham cannot simply monetize his own name without permission if the brand belongs elsewhere,” she said.
She pointed to historical precedents, including Chelsea FC’s registration of José Mourinho’s name, which meant the manager himself could not approve merchandise linked to his new club. “It is a clear example of how trademark rights can trump the individual,” Finster added.
The Beckham dispute is also reminiscent of previous high-profile cases in which founders lost control of their own names after selling companies, such as Jo Malone and Bobbi Brown. In these cases, the personal brand became a corporate asset, limiting the founders’ future freedom to operate under their own identities.
Finster pointed out that trademark disputes often attract public attention in a way that business law rarely does, precisely because they blur the line between family, identity and money. She pointed to popular culture, including the latest season of “Emily in Paris,” which focuses on family trademark violations.
She added that many of the world’s most commercially successful celebrity families moved early to avoid similar conflicts. The likes of Beyoncé and Jay-Z have joined the Kardashians in aggressively registering trademarks and securing social media access for their children from a young age, often as a defensive measure to prevent third-party exploitation.
“The Beckham situation shows what happens when the desire for personal autonomy collides with a brand that has already been locked down,” Finster said. “When your name is the capital, it’s not so easy to free yourself by doing whatever you want.”
As the family conflict continues to make headlines, legal experts say the incident serves as a cautionary tale for prominent families and business owners alike: Without clear agreements on ownership and future use, even the most personal asset – a family name – can become a source of conflict rather than a legacy.
