The trademark dispute at the heart of the Beckham family feud

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, underscoring how intellectual property law can collide with family relationships when a surname becomes a commercial asset.
The row centres on control of the Beckham name, which has long been protected as a trademark across multiple commercial categories. While the dispute has played out in the public eye as a deeply personal family fallout, legal experts say it is also a textbook example of how trademark ownership can override individual autonomy in business.
Hannah Finster, an intellectual property lawyer at Marks & Clerk, said the situation highlights a fundamental principle of trademark law.
“Trademark ownership trumps personal identity in commerce,” she said. “The Beckham family has strategically protected the ‘BECKHAM’ brand since 2000 across multiple classes of goods and services. This isn’t just family drama, it’s a clear example of trademark strategy colliding with personal autonomy.”
Finster said that, in legal terms, even being born with a famous surname does not automatically confer the right to commercialise it. “Brooklyn Beckham cannot simply monetise his own name without permission if the trademark is owned elsewhere,” she said.
She pointed to historic precedents, including Chelsea FC’s registration of José Mourinho’s name, which meant the manager himself could not authorise merchandise linked to his new club. “It’s a stark illustration of how trademark rights can sit above the individual,” Finster added.
The Beckham dispute also echoes earlier high-profile cases where founders lost control of their own names after selling businesses, such as Jo Malone and Bobbi Brown. In those cases, the personal brand became a corporate asset, limiting the founders’ future freedom to trade under their own identities.
Finster noted that trademark disputes often capture public attention in a way commercial 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 features a storyline centred on family trademark infringement.
She added that many of the world’s most commercially successful celebrity families have moved early to avoid similar conflicts. Figures such as Beyoncé and Jay-Z, along with the Kardashians, have aggressively registered trademarks and secured social media handles 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 clashes with a brand that has already been locked down,” Finster said. “When your name is the asset, breaking free is not as simple as doing whatever you want.”
As the family fallout continues to attract headlines, legal specialists say the episode serves as a cautionary tale for celebrity families and entrepreneurs alike: without clear agreements on ownership and future use, even the most personal of assets — a family name — can become a source of conflict rather than legacy.
Read more:
The trademark dispute at the heart of the Beckham family feud