Brand it like Beckham
Tilly Brown - 6 February 2026
The Beckham name has long been synonymous with football, fashion, and fame, but this week it has been the centre of a vastly different conversation. Amid online speculation and public commentary, the discovery of a registered name trade mark has shifted the story from celebrity drama to a matter of legal ownership and control.
The controversy gained traction after an Instagram story was posted by Brooklyn Beckham (Victoria and David’s eldest son), which prompted widespread online discussion and media coverage, with headlines speculating its meaning and implications. The story, posted on January 19th, caught the nation’s attention when Brooklyn spoke his truth about his relationship with his parents.
He accused his famous family of trying to ruin his marriage to wife Nicola Peltz Beckham, adding how he has no plans to reconcile with his family. The story made a series of claims, many of them relating to Brooklyn’s wedding – from wedding dress drama to Victoria allegedly hijacking the newlyweds first dance. As the drama made national chatter, a legal twist emerged: Victoria had trade marked her children’s names.
The Trade Marks Act 1994 defines a trade mark as “any sign which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.” In simple words, a trade mark is a recognisable sign making it distinct from its competitors. Once it has been registered with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), it can be used to protect a name or brand by preventing other businesses from using it.
In 2017, Brooklyn, along with and his three siblings Cruz, Harper, and Romeo Beckham, all had their birth names registered with the IPO. The trade mark covers a variety of goods and services including cosmetics, books, clothing, and toys. But what does this mean for the Beckham children? In simple terms, if they ever want to use their names to brand those goods and services, they need to go through Victoria Beckham first, as she owns the rights.
In Brooklyn’s Instagram post, he stated that ahead of his marriage in 2022 his parents had pressured him into signing away the rights to his name. He provided his belief that his family values “public promotion and endorsements above all else,” stating that “Brand Beckham comes first.” Celebrity disputes over trade marks are not unheard of, with A-listers such as Kylie Minogue and Katy Perry having been part of a trade mark battle in the past.
Brooklyn will have to wait until December 2026 to attempt to reclaim the rights to his name, as that is when the trade mark registration is up for renewal. However, should Victoria choose to renew it, Brooklyn will run into issues. He has the option to challenge a renewal if he can prove that the name has not been actively used. Alternatively, he could apply for a trade mark himself to be used independently.
It is worth noting that the significant part of the trade mark is the use of Brooklyn’s last name, ‘Beckham’. Questions could therefore arise over potential conflicts with the other Beckham trade mark registrations as a result. As seen in previous celebrity trade mark wars, negotiation may be the best course of action for Brooklyn, although it could result in limitations on the use of his name in any core “Brand Beckham” categories, such as fashion.
UK trade mark laws grant owners’ exclusive rights over the commercial use of a registered trade mark. Any unauthorised use could potentially constitute infringement. Brooklyn is provided with a UK safeguard relating to trade marks, meaning he is able to use his own name in the course of trade, provided he complies with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.” This means that he cannot confuse consumers, nor can he trade using the existing Beckham brand’s reputation.
Due to the Trade Marks Regulations 2018 amending legislation surrounding trade marks, where a dispute now reaches court, defences such as ‘honest concurrent use’ and ‘own name’ serve primarily as considerations for judges and not as statutory defences. Courts will focus on legal facts, not family drama, when determining the outcome of plaintiff action.
For a family whose name has become a global brand, this dispute serves as a reminder that in law, fame and familiarity offer little protection once trade marks and commercial interests are involved.