Can You Still Have Rights to Your Name Once It Becomes a Brand?
- flaminiavisionfact
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
Author: Dóra Fekete
When a Name Stops Being “Just a Name”
There is a point where a person’s name is no longer just an introduction. It is no longer a signature on an official document, nor a line in a civil registry, but something entirely different: a sign in a shop window, a label on a perfume bottle, a domain name in a browser’s address bar. A name that generates money, attracts attention, and produces legal disputes. This is where a question arises that sounds absurd at first, yet is very real: if my name has become a brand, is it still mine at all? Instinctively, the law would answer yes. After all, the right to one’s name is part of personality rights. Most European legal systems – including Hungarian law – start from the idea that a name is part of human identity and cannot be used arbitrarily by others. But this principle was born in a world where a name might at most appear on a signboard or a book cover. In the modern economy, however, a name can easily turn into a commercial designation, and from that moment on, other legal rules begin to shape its fate. When a name enters the market, it inevitably encounters trademark law. Trademark law does not ask who you are, but whether something distinguishes. If a name is capable of distinguishing goods or services from others on the market, it can become a trademark in the eyes of the law. This is why it now seems entirely natural that the name of an athlete, musician, or media personality functions as a global brand. The classic example is David Beckham, whose name today means far more than a former footballer: entire lines of clothing, fragrances, and advertising campaigns are associated with it. For many consumers, the word “Beckham” no longer primarily refers to a specific person, but to a style, a promise of quality.
From Identity to Cultural and Commercial Symbol
A similar path was taken by Madonna. The word “Madonna” originally had a religious meaning, then through a stage name it became a global pop-cultural sign, later attached to fashion and lifestyle products far beyond the music industry. Today the name carries such an independent meaning that it often detaches from the individual who originally bore it. The same dynamic appeared in the case of Kylie Minogue, who became involved in a long legal dispute when a business owner with the same first name used “KYLIE” as a cosmetics brand. The court ultimately had to assess whether, in the perception of the public, the name was more closely associated with the singer or whether it had taken on an independent existence as a market sign. One of the most instructive examples is perhaps the story of George Foreman. Foreman was not only a world champion boxer, but also became the face and name of an extraordinarily successful grill brand. In this case, however, the use of the name was conscious and contractual: Foreman actively participated in turning his name into a commercial product and received significant compensation for it. This story illustrates that the problem is not branding as such, but rather who controls the process and under what conditions.
Who Controls a Name Once It Is Registered?
Legal conflicts usually arise when the trademark registration of a name becomes detached from the will of the person concerned. EU trademark law allows the registration of personal names even when they are linked to real individuals. The mere fact that “this is my name” is not, in itself, an obstacle to trademark registration. This is how it can happen that a management company, a business partner, or even a third party registers someone else’s name and acquires exclusive rights over it.
The Limits of Personality Rights
At this point, many would instinctively turn back to personality rights – and rightly so, because the right to one’s name does not disappear. Courts, however, do not provide absolute protection; instead, they balance interests. They examine whether the use of the name harms the person’s reputation, misleads consumers, or creates the false impression that the individual endorses or is personally involved with the product. If these elements are not present, and the name has long functioned as an independent brand, the “strength” of personality rights visibly diminishes. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union consistently starts from the premise that if the public perceives a name not primarily as a person, but as an economic sign, trademark rights may prevail. In plain terms: the more successful a name is as a brand, the harder it becomes to reclaim control over it. The law does not offer moral vindication; it adapts to market realities. This leads to a somewhat cynical, yet very real conclusion: a name that has become a brand can rarely be reclaimed in its entirety. It may be possible to seek the cancellation of a trademark on grounds of bad faith, to limit its use, or to act against misleading communication, but once a name has detached from the individual, courts often say the same thing: this is no longer merely a person’s name, but an economic asset.
The Real Lesson: Identity Requires Foresight
The hardest lesson in this story is not legal, but human. The law does not protect identity retroactively; it expects foresight. Anyone who becomes a public figure, who builds a career in the public eye, must decide early on what will happen to their name. Because once a name crosses the threshold of the market, it no longer lives only in memories, but in contracts and registers.
You can also read about:
Reference list:
Comments