Beyoncé hits back in legal battle over rights to her daughter Blue Ivy’s name demanding event planner called 'Blue Ivy' keep proceedings under wraps

Beyoncé has hit back in the latest legal battle over the trademarking of her daughter's name Blue Ivy, demanding that the proceedings of the saga be kept quiet from the public.



Documents obtained exclusively by DailyMailTV reveal the singer's company BGK Trademark Holdings has lashed out against 'Blue Ivy' events for its 'desire to harass' the mother-of-three in the tug-of-war over the unique moniker.

The 36-year-old has been fighting since 2012 - when Blue Ivy was born- to claim the trademark but was denied the rights because the event company already owned the mark.

Now Beyoncé's lawyers are demanding that the proceedings be kept quiet out of concern of 'privacy' and 'physical safety' for the Hollywood family.

In late September, BGK (the singer's initials) filed a further support of motion to have a protective order surrounding the case to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Los Angeles.

BGK questions the intent of the legal team behind Veronica Morales, the owner of Blue Ivy events, claiming they are using the case to bring about media attention and to 'harass ... Mrs. Carter and disclose her confidential information to the public'.

They requested for the patent board to allow their motion of a protective order around the proceedings to prevent details of Beyoncé's deposition from getting out.

In February, the Grammy-winner's company filed a trademark application to launch a series of products under the name of Blue Ivy - which included everything from mobile devices, hair care, a clothing line and even video games.

However it was challenged by Morales, who claimed Beyoncé had no intention of actually selling products and instead wants the name 'merely so that nobody else' does.

In June, Jonathan Schwartz, the former executive vice president of BGK Trademark Holdings, was ordered to testify to determine whether or not the star committed fraud.

The news was another blow to the A-lister's efforts in the trademark battle after fighting against the deposition as Morales claimed Beyoncé had no intention to actually use the trademark.

In 2012, Beyoncé filed an 'intent to use' application covering 14 international trademark classes.

The US Trademark Act states the request may only be filed by a person 'who has a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person, to use a trademark in commerce.'

The songstress filed five extensions with the US Patent and Trademark Office requesting additional time to file statements showing the use of the Blue Ivy Carter mark.

By 2016, BGK abandoned the application after failing to show use of the name, but Schwartz filed a second request earlier this year on behalf of the singer.

In court papers, Morales cited a 2013 Vanity Fair interview in which Jay Z was asked to confirm rumors that the couple would develop a clothing line under their daughter's name.

'People wanted to make products based on our child's name, and you don't want anybody trying to benefit off your baby's name,' he told the magazine.

'It wasn't for us to do anything; as you see, we haven't done anything.

'First of all, it's a child, and it bothers me when there's no [boundaries]. I come from the streets, and even in the most atrocious sh*t we were doing, we had lines: no kids, no mothers—there was respect there.

'But [now] there's no boundaries. For somebody to say, this person had a kid—I'm gonna make a f***ing stroller with that kid's name. It's, like, where's the humanity?'

In June, Beyoncé and Jay-Z used BGK to file trademarks on the names of their new twins, Rumi Carter and Sir Carter, according to TMZ.

Please Share:

Kindly drop a comment. The comment box is below