Dictionary.com

It’s true: Jay-Z and Beyoncé trademarked their daughter’s name, “Blue Ivy Carter.” You may be asking yourself: can you even do that? Trademark a name? Does that mean you could trademark the word “the” or “and”? Well, trademark law has some interesting leeways and limits.

Before Jay-Z and Beyoncé submitted their application, two other people tried to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter.” However, the US Patent and Trademark Office said no because it is illegal to register a trademark with illegitimate affiliation with a celebrity. What does that mean? You cannot trademark someone else’s name or image without their explicit permission, particularly in the case of celebrities, so the other attempts to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter” were rejected.

Conversely, Jay-Z and Beyoncé’s application was approved; they now officially own the trademark of “Blue Ivy Carter.” Does this mean that you can’t name your baby Blue Ivy? Of course not. You could name your child any trademarked name: McDonald’s, Hilton, Versace. There’s a very pertinent detail to trademarks: when you trademark a word or phrase, it is limited to a certain category of goods or services. In this case, Jay-Z and Beyoncé registered their daughter’s name under the category of child or baby products. Even though you can’t start a clothing line called Versace because that would infringe on the copyright, you could start a restaurant or a line of hotels called Versace. This means even if a word is “trademarked” it is still more or less a normal word.

Back in 2004, the Supreme Court made an interesting interpretation of trademark law. In the case, one company, Lasting Impressions I Inc., sued a rival company for using copyrighted language. In this case, the rival, KP Permanent Make-Up Inc., used just one word – microcolors – that supposedly infringed on the copyright. Lasting Impressions claimed that customers would be confused, and they should maintain their right to that language. KP argued that the term was widely used before Lasting Impressions trademarked the word. The Supreme Court agreed with KP and said that the use of the trademarked word was covered under the doctrine of fair use. What’s fair use? Fair use is a tricky element of trademark law because it includes all the exceptions to the rules. If you want to quote a book, for example, it is covered under fair use, and the author cannot sue you. If you want to make a copy of a book and sell it, it is not covered under fair use. Fair use is one reason why we can discuss “Blue Ivy Carter” and use her name and not fear retribution from her loving parents. (If we said something bad about the baby that would be a libel issue, which is an entirely different discussion.) Trademarks do not interfere with our daily lives, in part, because of fair use.

Lastly, it’s important to keep in mind that trademarking something doesn’t mean that it completely stops being in the world. The US Patent and Trademark Office itself does not pursue copyright infringement suits. Rather, the owner of a trademark has legal permission to sue someone for copyright infringement.

What do you think of trademarking “Blue Ivy Carter”? Are trademark rules reasonable and relevant?

434 Comments

  1. MC -  May 20, 2014 - 9:11 am

    Really who wrote this? Stop giving so much false legal “advice” it is really sad.

    Reply
  2. MC -  May 20, 2014 - 9:10 am

    This person has no idea what they are talking about, I about I have been laughing for an hour straight. too funny.

    Reply
  3. Red Ivy -  March 27, 2014 - 3:50 pm

    I don’t know if I am more disappointed by the fact that they trademarked their baby’s name, or by the number of people that appear to support that decision. Further evidence of the Walmartization of society.

    Suck it everyone.

    Reply
  4. Martha Edwards Smith -  March 26, 2014 - 1:24 pm

    We only have to look at “Wendy’s” to see people can love their children enough to want to let them know how much they love them by commemorating them by using their name for something that means a great deal to them. The issue I have is giving a child whom I know Jay-z and Beyonce must love with all their hearts a name for planned marketability. Yes, it sounds cool, but the lack of wisdom rests in the lack of protection for the innocent child who is now through no act of its own thrust into a world that most loving parents would seek to shield it from, at least for the first years of its life. A child needs space to grow….not money and fame…or immediate exposure to the poor choices its parents might make….even if it can’t turn on the tube just yet to watch videos that degrade the image of the beautiful woman it might become…IF ONLY it were isolated from the difficult, ambiguous world it will one day have to face head-on…without the extra push to the edge of a precipice none of us would like to face. NO ONE benefits by seeing in black and white…or color…videos that only degrade women and put them in the place of a sexual object…only there to please and be controlled by the appetites of sexually focused individuals…it is a delusion to think that kind of exposure is empowering….their’s is an unfortunate, twisted thought process that shows how far our society has digressed to the level of the Greeks and Romans…it makes you wonder how long it will take us to start rekindling the entertainments of the Colloseum.

    Reply
  5. cody -  March 20, 2014 - 3:16 pm

    this is cray Zeeeeee whatthaththahaththat WHAtttttttt

    Reply
  6. Bailey A. -  February 9, 2014 - 7:03 am

    I was against this at first, but now that I think about it, its a good thing. When she grows up, she can use that to brand her business. Now, I just hop e it’s a good and very positive business, nothing distasteful. It’s good for parents to prepare for their children. They are celebrities, so they had to hurry and trademark it, b/c others would have before she grew up.

    Reply
  7. Susan -  May 10, 2013 - 6:58 am

    They filed a 1b trademark application which is “intent-to-use” in International classes 3,6,9,10,12,16,18,20,21,24,26,28,35, & 41. This means that they will have to sell goods with the mark displayed on them in a reasonable amount of time. Obviously, they have intent to use the mark or it would never have been approved by the USPTO. It is well within their rights to protect the mark and file oppostions to anyone filing similar marks in their classes. This was a business decision.

    Reply
  8. tupac shakur -  March 12, 2013 - 2:40 am

    What a DISCRACEFUL name for a baby trademarking your only child
    How and why?

    Reply
  9. Kayla -  November 21, 2012 - 7:50 am

    I guess it makes sense that they don’t want someone to be able to start a business called Blue Ivy, but it seems a bit ridiculous. If they were so worried about her name being used for something like that, why not name her Mary or Sophia or something like that?

    Reply
  10. alexus -  October 2, 2012 - 10:27 am

    i think the baby is cute and i live jay-z and beyonce’s music

    Reply
  11. jRelsBruceD -  August 7, 2012 - 8:43 pm

    I’m quite about to do this step. This post got me thinking whether i should do it. Again. But thank you very much!
    jShacerDoee

    Reply
  12. Dee -  June 17, 2012 - 7:22 am

    Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! Who the heck do these people think they are? Royalty? They need to get over themselves, shutting down a whole floor to push a baby out? Hiring what? 8 nannies to work in shifts, seriously, Beyonce calls herself a “mom”? She is a pathetic excuse for a “mother”. by the way, the name sucks, it doesn’t sound like an original name, let’s hope this aby doesn’t inherit Jay Z’s dumb look (that he has on his face all the time) and Beyonce’s thunder thighs!!! Beyonce needs to get h head out of big ass and come down to earth!

    Reply
    • schneider -  June 27, 2014 - 12:08 pm

      First at all I completely agree with you Dee!
      are you kidding me! trademark a name. i´m really disregard with that J-z who the fuking hell is, but i thing beyonce as a beauty star, not just a marchandiser. what a lack of creativity, paraphrasing someone more here:
      I don’t like the name, and I don’t know why anyone would want to use it, much less trademark it.
      “Blue Ivy Carter”, maybe is a future line of cosmetics isn´t?

      Reply
  13. Sophia-Blue -  June 7, 2012 - 8:39 am

    Hey guys, I’m Blue!

    Reply
  14. Sophia-Blue -  June 7, 2012 - 8:38 am

    also is her name just blue and ivy is her middle name or is her name blue ivy?

    Reply
  15. Sophia-Blue -  June 7, 2012 - 8:30 am

    If they like the number 4 so much, why not call her ivy?

    Reply
  16. mary torres :)2gud4u:) -  May 22, 2012 - 5:34 pm

    @z thanks!

    Reply
  17. wathlo -  May 17, 2012 - 7:35 am

    y would they do tht

    Reply
  18. wathlo -  May 17, 2012 - 7:35 am

    y would they do tht

    Reply
  19. z -  May 16, 2012 - 3:15 pm

    Sorry, I meant point

    Reply
  20. z -  May 16, 2012 - 2:43 pm

    Hey “Me”, I agree with the comment about mary torres, but you spelled ridiculous wrong. So maybe you should look up how to spell stuff too, before you poin out other peoples spelling.

    Reply
  21. Peepers -  May 16, 2012 - 5:42 am

    I like the no name post from Feb 18 – if she were to grow up and hate her name and change it. Too funny! I don’t care for the name for a baby, but I agree it especially makes sense if they plan to use it for business purposes.

    Reply
  22. RACHEL -  May 16, 2012 - 3:26 am

    Erin on February 18, 2012 at 10:22 am
    I don’t like the name, and I don’t know why anyone would want to use it, much less trademark it. It must be nice to have too much time on one’s hands.

    I concur! #1 WHO CARES?? #2 That’s a horrible name! And, goes along with the Celebrity Fanatacism that produces children with names like Banjo, Satchel, and Fifi Honeyblossom (yes that last one is one name not two). These children will have every need met which they should but instead of trademarking their child’s name so they can make money how about trademarking and starting a non-profit for starving children in the U.S. or anywhere??? Put it to GOOD use not uselessness.

    Reply
  23. girl in the red gress -  May 15, 2012 - 8:15 am

    just a horried name. come on people lets be reale for a moment; as soon as that kid turns 18 i bet she will change her name. WHAT WERE THEY HIGH OR SOMETHNG. It’s just so stupid, well I fell bad for her when she goes to school.

    Reply
  24. Doll -  May 15, 2012 - 7:21 am

    I find it amazing how I see so much bad grammar on DICTIONARY.COM
    Beautiful name, though(:

    Reply
    • B -  July 4, 2014 - 9:30 am

      haha my thoughts exactly!

      Reply
  25. Lena -  May 15, 2012 - 6:12 am

    Wow! what a slew of comments here! The real funny thing is that the celebrities themselves will never read any of this… never give a thought or a care of what any of us have to think, and keep investing their money in stupidities! Trademark a name. Seriously…..?

    Reply
  26. dfgb -  May 15, 2012 - 5:25 am

    say wha? imma sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo confused

    ps.
    how do u spell beutiful? imma bad speller

    Reply
  27. wow...slow down! -  May 15, 2012 - 12:52 am

    I totally agree with you, um….really!

    Reply
  28. wow...slow down! -  May 15, 2012 - 12:49 am

    Hey, I personally think that the name ‘Blue Ivy’ is RIDICULOUS! Why do celebrities kinda ruin their child’s life, by giving them such weird names? Will Blue Ivy be called ‘Blue’ for short? (“Hey guys I’m Blue, what’s your name?) I think this is an obvious marketing ploy, by trade-marking the name. I feel SO sorry for this kid, oblivious to the scandal raised by her ego-inflated parents. Don’t get me wrong, Beyonce and Jay-Z have some pretty mean songs, but why should they go to all the trouble to TRADEMARK their poor daughters name? And why is it not allowed for the ‘normal’ people to trademark their names? That’s completely ludicrous and kinda stupid?!
    I guess that’s all I have to say on that – I just get really annoyed at those people who consider themselves on a higher level than others, simply because they have fame, fortune and pots of money.

    Reply
    • Alexandra Bello -  June 12, 2014 - 2:13 pm

      The Ego Winss! These people are ridiculous with their decisions.

      Reply
  29. Yumi -  May 14, 2012 - 7:14 pm

    really it s just a stupid name( just blue or ivy would be nice but what the hell is blue ivy carter) also the whole trademark thiny is stupid

    Reply
  30. Alexandra -  May 14, 2012 - 7:12 pm

    People need to calm down about celebrity babies. Yeah, so what, they had a baby? Everyone has a kid. Its not the end of the world, people! I mean seriously! Yes Blue Ivy is a really pretty name, I am not going to lie, but why worry about celebritys’ babies?
    It seems like they are reporting every little thing famous people do. ‘Today Kristen Stewart ate a snack.’ or ‘Liam Hemsworth sat up.’ It gets pretty annoying. Me being only 12 years old, yes I know I sound like I don’t know jack squat, but I am just fed up with the news people.
    Why not talk about real news? Like stuff other than non-sense. To some people that is acctually entertaining.

    Reply
  31. ai -  May 14, 2012 - 4:44 pm

    i don’t have a problem with anything they name their child, but copyrighting a name is completely ridiculous. i know you want the best for your child, but it seems to me like trademarking a name ( for a what appears to be keeping it unique) is absolutely ridiculous.
    i’m not an expert on names but in copy rights in general be it for music or art, i recoomend watching the video
    “remixers manifesto” it’s pretty cool, and can be found on youtube :)

    Reply
  32. John Schwab -  May 4, 2012 - 7:16 pm

    Trademarks and copyrights are distinct animals. Trademarks associate a name with a good or service. Copyrights protect the artistic expression of an idea. Most people confuse or muddle them together as this article did, but they are very different in the real world. You can trademark a name, but you cannot, as the article implies, copyright a name. There just is not enough “artistic expression” in a name to be able to copyright it.

    Reply
  33. silindile -  April 26, 2012 - 10:40 am

    WOW!!that’s the only thing i can think of,,imagine if it’s a sarcastic one!!

    Reply
  34. diamondsett -  April 9, 2012 - 6:30 pm

    supp mary(:

    Reply
  35. ummm, really? -  April 5, 2012 - 11:43 pm

    The child will get an over inflated ego just like it’s parents, it will inherit their stupidity, and it will get stupid celebrity privileges just like it’s parents. We need the smart people who can help our nation to be celebrities, therefore we can have our nation out of this mess, instead of having all of America be driven toward wasting money, becoming popular, trademarking their child’s name, buying every useless thing they can, and letting innocent people starve in countries in poverty. If smart people make the money and are celebrities, then, we can conserve money and help everyone live a better life. Instead of following that example. Really, I see most people leaning toward the common music celebrity lifestyle. I appreciate good music, but not songs using cuss words and about lust. this is their primary money maker. We need to focus on the future generations, and start by getting rid of the “popular music” millionaires who waste their money on stuff no one needs. For example, music used to be an honest business, no enhancing. If we get back to the honest music, and stop spending too much money on music. Our nation has gotten lost in religion, politics, and alas, music and TV, and technology. This all should be taken in small doses, but, we find at least one of these interfering with daily life. If we continue down this path, the future generation will be lost, as we can already see happening. This stuff is the seed to a bad path, we should not even be hearing about this. You should hear the new medicines, new energy resources, and not the lives of worshiped, over-rated people. This life in America has turned in the caste system in India. Invest in our future, and don’t let People magazines and the mixed up lives of celebrities allude you into wasting money in a lost cause. We don’t need music, though it is a great expression of the soul. We need a better future for our children, and this is not it. We should not be branding our children at two months old, but instead planning how we should guide them down the right path. Not forcing them into a horrible lives where their egos will set a world record before they’re four. This is what they prevented in Harry Potter. You may never remember this, but we must address this issue, instead of letting a educational site fall victim to this scandal veiled under what we call a celebrity. Back to the issue on hand, only things that are original, and not valueless should be in the ability to trademark. Something talentless and reworked is valueless, therefore should be unable to be copyrighted. The child’s name is valueless, as well as the child, so it should be unable to be copyrighted. Come on people, invest in what you need, not what valueless celebrities don’t even care for anymore. The one dollar you spend on iTunes just goes along with the millions, and the millions go to a new house in thirty, and the middle class buy several a day, and the middle class become poor, the poor become in poverty, and the rich become richer.

    Reply
  36. ummm, really? -  April 2, 2012 - 10:40 pm

    Look at comment by the person who called them self “Me”. Hypocrite. Really, you need to be able to spell in order to criticize someone else on this matter. I will never understand people who go around flaunting their lack of intelligence. “mary torres” and “Me” included. I mean, buttiful and rediculous? Can you get any less intelligent without being under 5 years old. Urgent news for next person who writes a comment. We are on dictionary.com, and you can use this to your advantage, as well as your inaccurate spell checks.
    And it is a horrible name and who on earth would trademark their child’s name? I think that is a sign of bad parenting, and the child will have enough trauma without having to be teased about their name. If they start a brand using their child’s name they are less intelligent then “mary torres” or, “Me”.

    Reply
  37. JT -  April 2, 2012 - 7:22 am

    stupid waste of time..wish i had never read this

    Reply
  38. Lyn Alg -  April 1, 2012 - 4:39 am

    Hey, Yo mun. Dat is wun funny name, Yo? Were da heck did Bouncey an JZ git di name?

    Reply
  39. Hello there people of earth -  March 31, 2012 - 12:33 am

    Ok, the baby is cute. But all babies are cute. What’s weird is her name. I agree with whoever said it sounded like some poisonous ivy. “Lily,” fine. “Petunia,” fine (Go Harry Potter). “Daisy,” even “Daffodil” or “Ivy.” But ivy isn’t blue, and why would you name your child that? It’s like mutant ivy. Hey guys, I have a kid I named after nonexistant mutant ivy. Isn’t that cute?
    As for the trademarking of their baby, I think that’s a marketing strategy. I mean honestly, what bad thing would really happen if they hadn’t? Nothing. Thus they wanted something good. What? Money. It has nothing to do with something good for Blue Ivy herself, because as a baby she can give no input but doesn’t deserve to have her freedom taken away from her at two weeks old.
    And guys, stop hating on Mary Torres. We use u, idk (which sounds like I decay), lol (which is like “loll”), rofl (no one does that), lmao (no one does that either), and such, so why can’t she say “buttiful”? It’s sort of the opposite of Blue Ivy’s situation – she had control over what she said, whereas B.L. has no control over being trademarked. Her name was trademarked before she could talk. Really.
    With all due respect to Beyonce – I love you so much – and Jay-Z, who I highly doubt are reading this anyway so whatevs.

    Reply
  40. horla -  March 30, 2012 - 8:32 am

    all well and good but it’s not about trademarking names is about teaching the child the right way an being a good parent….

    Reply
  41. Sabrina -  March 29, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    Cool but the name is way to outragous. I mean, i undrstnd both celebs have crazy names soo ya but still thats really stupid of them to trademark the name

    Reply
  42. Mordecai Martin -  March 15, 2012 - 10:13 am

    Ooooow,you are a pretty couple to and probably
    I talk to you later.
    :) :) :) :)

    Reply
  43. diamond -  March 14, 2012 - 2:52 am

    LOL taylor….Love the the surname Chadens!!!! Gud idea i like i like(**,)

    Reply
  44. Superjag -  March 12, 2012 - 4:16 pm

    Meh, trademarks are only valid if they are used to identify a product or service. If no one associates the mark with a product, it loses trademark status.

    Reply
  45. mary torres so swagging -  March 11, 2012 - 2:23 pm

    @ taylor heeeeeyyyyyyy whats up ?

    Reply
  46. Taylor Chadens -  March 10, 2012 - 9:36 am

    Weird right??? I agree… Child Of god is a world of evil!!! Maybe They should name the baby Taylor Chadens!!!!!
    Thats my name!

    Reply
  47. Cheer4issy -  March 10, 2012 - 12:19 am

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. -Hendrix

    I feel the love

    Reply
  48. diamond -  March 8, 2012 - 10:22 am

    So not a wonderful name who would name their child Blue Ivy and i mean they are such huge devil worshopers…..Do you guys know the real meaning of the childs name B=Born L=Living U=Under E=Evil I=Illuminati’s V=Very Y=Youngst. So carry on with this baby which is suppose to be the child of God but instead they brought it in their world of evil!!!!

    Reply
  49. thomas jefferson -  March 7, 2012 - 7:40 am

    indubitably

    Reply
  50. Ironic Twist -  March 6, 2012 - 9:35 pm

    Blue Ivy is a pretty name, but I don’t believe it should be trademarked. Trademarking a name seems ridiculous to me, but hey, go for it if you want. Blue Ivy ……

    Reply
  51. GenomeGnomeNomeNom -  March 5, 2012 - 4:52 pm

    Damn, see, I was going to start a new line of Marijuana products and call it Blue Ivy…

    OK, I’m kidding, but given Jay-Z’s songs, marijuana’s the first thing I thought of when I heard “Blue Ivy”

    Reply
  52. mary torres so swagging -  March 5, 2012 - 11:01 am

    yup

    Reply
  53. wrath -  March 4, 2012 - 6:11 pm

    hmmm. heard of a company somewhere in the middle east “hermes”. I thought it’s the one that manufactures the luxurious bags. But i was wrong.. I dunno what company was that. LOL…

    Reply
  54. MissRedhead -  February 29, 2012 - 1:21 pm

    meh who cares what they did…
    good for them blah, the world goes on.

    Reply
  55. MissKeyz -  February 28, 2012 - 4:06 pm

    should’ve*

    Reply
  56. MissKeyz -  February 28, 2012 - 4:05 pm

    I think Beyonce shoul’ve trademarked her name instead of the baby’s name. Nothing towards the baby but that name ..just ain right. [my op)

    Reply
  57. mary torres so loved -  February 24, 2012 - 2:33 pm

    have a wonderful weekend everyone :D

    Reply
  58. jay selvey -  February 24, 2012 - 12:47 pm

    Ava! Right on! Who the hell cares about some rich scumbags so rife with egomanic tendancies that they actually trademark a name?! At any given time there are half a billion babies pooping around the planet; so why does everyone think their pooper is so special? What have these rich loosers done to help others besides give to some highly visible charity that takes 90% of the money and runs? Did they go to a suffering school and buy band instruments or sports equipment? Bet they didn’t! Too busy figuring where the next million is going to come from. Hollywood can kiss my grits!

    Reply
  59. mary torres so loved -  February 24, 2012 - 12:39 pm

    :~)

    Reply
  60. mary torres so loved -  February 24, 2012 - 12:38 pm

    :X

    Reply
  61. mary torres so loved -  February 24, 2012 - 12:38 pm

    :C

    Reply
  62. andrea allen -  February 23, 2012 - 3:17 am

    Didn’t even know they had a baby until a few days ago…i dont have or care to watch regular tv…NETFLIX ROCKS. So awsome that my kids & i dont get brain f’d by commercials, EVER. And dont care about what b & j do. look at jay-z the only thing she finds handsome about him is that his money matches hers, so she has a guy who can actually buy her expensive gifts w/out her having to put in on it. I have a child w/cerebral palzy, u think this couple has helped me in anyway w/that? No? ok then “f” em. Crap like this makes communism appealing, the only diff is this is america, instead of us being on the same poor level, WE COULD ALL BE RICH,

    ~watch innocence project on Netfix & get involved! the government killing innocent people at will? IT COULD HAPPEN 2 U!!

    Reply
  63. Luck in W -  February 22, 2012 - 11:34 pm

    I think I’ll have to go back to school sometime. I can no longer understand what some of the writers here on the blog…and elsewhere. I’m not sure if people are being insulting and congratulating someone.

    Reply
  64. niaapril -  February 22, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    it makes me think of her baby’s name that she’s the sky idk :/

    Reply
  65. mary torres -  February 22, 2012 - 1:07 pm

    @HANNA OKKKK THANK I GUSS LOL

    Reply
  66. mary torres -  February 22, 2012 - 1:04 pm

    @ANNE NO THAT IZ NOT WHAT I MENT F U

    Reply
  67. mary torres -  February 22, 2012 - 12:39 pm

    LOOK I CALLED HER A pata lol :)

    Reply
  68. Kathy -  February 22, 2012 - 6:35 am

    Just think of how much money I could have made with a blue Ivy pair of jeans and sneakers.. Goo thing they did trademarked the name. I would be right on that name.

    Reply
  69. cae.cae. -  February 21, 2012 - 6:42 pm

    fran, you made me smile. can i make my name famous? cae? like kay? but spelled c-a-e… nope. guess i’m not famous enough! fml. ;P

    Reply
  70. fran -  February 21, 2012 - 4:34 pm

    great so they’re probably going to create a baby clothing line where a onesie costs $15, who cares, they did something a billion other people in the world do, had a baby. i’m sick of the super rich!

    Reply
  71. mary torres -  February 21, 2012 - 12:47 pm

    dont hate on me !

    Reply
  72. andrew -  February 21, 2012 - 11:19 am

    jonthan thine you look if you borad er me agian see you at NY

    Reply
  73. andrew -  February 21, 2012 - 11:18 am

    jothan whats good

    Reply
  74. andrew -  February 21, 2012 - 11:17 am

    kaymal wahts goddy

    Reply
  75. andrew -  February 21, 2012 - 11:09 am

    why dont you name it kisss

    Reply
  76. jamie -  February 21, 2012 - 10:34 am

    if they are doing this to start a baby clothing line, wouldn’t there be infringement issues with the “Carter’s” clothing line for babies that already exists?

    Reply
  77. leslie -  February 21, 2012 - 10:09 am

    thats a stupid thing

    Reply
  78. tb -  February 21, 2012 - 10:06 am

    @TG i wonder wat did beyonce did to you

    Reply
  79. Jarshaun -  February 21, 2012 - 9:55 am

    I think the baby nice!….look like my wife beyonce!…

    Reply
  80. tebogo -  February 21, 2012 - 9:53 am

    their child’s name means lot to them .. maybe for business,, who knows maybe their will open a baby’s shop that will be named for their

    Reply
  81. TG -  February 21, 2012 - 9:32 am

    OMG, not on my dictionary.com too! Et tu Dictionary.com? I really, REALLY didn’t need to see this spotlight-craving couple on even this website! Please say it ain’t so, lol. No matter how much I try to escape them, they are EVERYWHERE. I think it’s really ironic that an article about two high school dropouts is on an educational website like dictionary.com.

    My day is ruined. Thanks Dictionary.com.

    Reply
  82. smilefunkybaby -  February 21, 2012 - 9:29 am

    did you know that ‘blue ivy’ is a satanic name. her name backwards is illuminati for lucifers son

    Reply
  83. John -  February 21, 2012 - 9:25 am

    What a confused article. Trade marks are completely separate area of law from copyright. One protects brand names, the other protects artistic works. The owner of a trade mark does not have legal permission to sue somebody for copyright infringement. It’s like saying a victim of negligence has the right to sue somebody for libel.

    Reply
  84. corey -  February 21, 2012 - 9:23 am

    beautiful

    Reply
  85. unsepected -  February 21, 2012 - 9:00 am

    O sorry let me say something else….beyonce i love your songs but i think it Pathetic that you gotta lie to your fans that….this baby is yours knowing that it is not…….and for all the women that has been or are pregnant yall all know when you sit down your stomach does not COLLAPSE!!!!this is really getting on my nerves….why lie and say you hadda baby when your fans will apperciate you more that you adopted one…thats all im saying

    Reply
  86. unsepected -  February 21, 2012 - 8:54 am

    again let me start off by saying that people that is talking about other peoples comments yall need to stop because yall not making no effiin sense either…so quit worrying about what other people are saying and worrying about what is about to come outta yo mouth…thank you!!!

    Reply
  87. anna -  February 21, 2012 - 8:47 am

    I am very happy for Beyonce and Jay-Z, but Blue Ivy is an absolutely ridiculous name. If she didn’t have worshipped parents then she would be an absolute laughing stock. Anyway, you can’t rent a hospital! What about all the other pregnant woman? Their babies are just as important. Also, they’re just exploiting their baby by creating a clothes line. The only people who will buy it are people whose lives are a joke, so they just sit around all day staring at the tv. Beyonce and Jay-Z are very ignorant, and seem to only care about themselves. They only give to charity for publicity. A lot of celebrities are like that. They honestly only care about themselves.

    Reply
  88. Breanna -  February 21, 2012 - 8:47 am

    I think you should name it annebeth

    Reply
  89. Jose Ontiveros -  February 21, 2012 - 8:40 am

    Well since im in accounting class at this very moment,,, i think beyonce is a gifted telented person. and i think i shop at dillards :)

    Reply
  90. Kiana wells -  February 21, 2012 - 8:26 am

    thats good that they did that so nobody can do anything ignorant with their child’s name.

    Reply
  91. Marilyn Angelena -  February 21, 2012 - 8:15 am

    I think it was brilliant strategic business play on their part. Congrats!

    Reply
  92. ed -  February 21, 2012 - 8:13 am

    Versace is a common word? Maybe in the fabulously wealthy world of lexicographers but, not for most of us.

    Reply
  93. Joe -  February 21, 2012 - 8:03 am

    I can’t wait for Beyonce to have two more daughters: “Green Grass Campbell” and “Orange Blossom Taylor”. :)

    Reply
  94. Greg -  February 21, 2012 - 7:57 am

    Golly, Hannah, if nobody owns anything, than I guess it’s okay for me to crash at the place where you live and eat the food in your refrigerator – oops, I mean the refrigerator in the place where you live that nobody owns.

    And while we’re at it, maybe I can make money off any of the things you’ve written or created and not give you any credit – since intellectual property is just an exercise in egotism.

    Bob Dole – did you actually READ the article? They don’t own the name, they just have the rights to use it for a specific type of business. And this makes perfect sense.

    Reply
  95. Alxandro -  February 21, 2012 - 7:54 am

    If the parents own the name of the child, that means the child will forever be slave of the parents.
    That seems like a form of child abuse.

    And what happens when the parents decide to divorce?

    Reply
  96. Haley Schaffer -  February 21, 2012 - 7:44 am

    the legal system never sieses to amaze me with it’s many loop holes

    Reply
  97. Samson omoh -  February 21, 2012 - 7:44 am

    Wonderfull, what if the child growup to become what they don’t think

    Reply
  98. shnitzulampaka shlumpadinka -  February 21, 2012 - 7:22 am

    lol

    Reply
  99. ralsan -  February 21, 2012 - 7:11 am

    What celebs wont do to get into the news. What a sorrowful way to use their baby. Have they no concern for when this child should grow up saddled with a such a name. Celebs think up these weird names so they are headlined without a care or concern for their child. Pathetic

    Reply
  100. Karl -  February 21, 2012 - 6:56 am

    Isn’t a blue “ivy” carter one of those hospital orderlies who carts around those intravenous injection setups with the blue liquids?

    Reply
  101. savanna -  February 21, 2012 - 6:42 am

    wow that is very interesting

    Reply
  102. no -  February 21, 2012 - 6:32 am

    Read this – haha

    “Me on February 18, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    Jay Z and Beyonce are rediculous. As are you miss mary torres. The website is called Dictionary.com, why don’t you look up how to spell BEAUTIFUL, not buttiful”

    I love how this moron is giving out spelling advice, and even uses dictionary.com as a source to teach the other moron of the obvious mistake that’s been made…… then spells ridiculous “rediculous” in the same comment.

    Reply
  103. Crissy -  February 21, 2012 - 6:28 am

    Her initials are BIC… should a certain pen company sue?

    Reply
  104. fivejamesrus -  February 21, 2012 - 6:21 am

    I am shocked to see such attention given to two individuals. They are just two human beings! I have to say this though, it is nice to see a celebrity couple actually marry before having a child the old fashion way! I like the name “Blue” I had an Uncle Blue and thought it different and always liked names that were not of the norm. I have four beautiful sons whom I named Micah, Josiah, Eli & Silas. They have a biblical name and family name. Now, if you saw the family name you might think the same of Blue Ivy…. Micah Paul (after his Dad & Grandfather), Josiah Virgil (after my grandfather), Julian Eli (after both our mother’s Julia) and Silas Dale (after my father).

    With that being said, let’s hope Blue Ivy grows up to do wonderful things for our planet and people in need! She’s have the $$$ to change a little piece of our earth!

    And to all of you, have a joyful day because you are blessed and highly favored my friends!

    Reply
  105. Kaytee -  February 21, 2012 - 6:11 am

    I think they may have trademarked it so that no one starts a baby clothing line using the baby’s fame through her parents. Keeps legal issues at bay. Some people would like to make you pay more just because it’s baby stuff (small and usually not too complicated to make (i.e. Baby carriers that are just a very long piece of rectangle fabric)), and even more if it could be thought to be affiliated with say someone you like such as an artist.

    Maybe they did it for the money, then I have no respect for the decision. But if they wanted to secure the name to start a company with it, then I guess it’s okay. I’m just confused if the 2 previous requester asked for the name’s copyright before or after the couple… If before, I believe it’s a bit unfair, but it could indeed be related to abusing the status of the couple to make money with the baby’s name.

    Reply
  106. unsepected -  February 21, 2012 - 5:59 am

    i just wanna say all of yall are crazy if yall really think that is their baby it doesn’t even add up she was supposed to have her baby this month but in stead she had it in january…..but she wasn’t 9months in january thats impossible THEY ARE PLAYIN ALL OF YALL!!!! go back to the time she was supposed to be pregnant she said and i quote ” the baby is due in february” so believe what yall want i but i don’t believe it’s true……..BEYONCE AND JAY-Z are just some lairs….

    Reply
  107. Erie -  February 21, 2012 - 5:57 am

    Trademarking a name seem ridicules to me. What else will someone think of to trademark or register? It’s a baby (cute yes, but still a baby) and what if Blue Iry Carter wants to change her name someday? Then what happens?
    This is out of control. Maybe they should have come up with a baby product line first.

    Reply
  108. Naledi -  February 21, 2012 - 5:08 am

    Because they figured out they are not just a married couple, they are a business empire; an economy in its own standing!

    Reply
  109. jaylin jones -  February 21, 2012 - 5:02 am

    We are some famous people naming these famous kids Jay~Z

    Reply
  110. jaylin jones -  February 21, 2012 - 4:57 am

    faboulus name jay~Z! coooooollll! that flamelous!

    Reply
  111. P5yx071kZ0 -  February 21, 2012 - 3:36 am

    …~Dies from all the ‘text speak’ und horrible misspells.~ (“Und” is “and” in German. <3)

    Reply
  112. Philip -  February 21, 2012 - 2:38 am

    What a stupid name. It’s almost as stupid as Beyonce. What’s up with the home made names? The spelling and English on this site is laughable!

    Reply
  113. ARMY GUY -  February 21, 2012 - 1:05 am

    AWESOME!! 1ST IM GONA TRADEMARK ME A NAME, THEN IM GONA BUY A STAR. THE WORLD IZ ALMOST MINE!

    Reply
  114. Mike -  February 20, 2012 - 9:51 pm

    Please consult an actual IP lawyer before attempting to discuss IP. You cannot sue someone under copyright law for a trademark infringement. Copyrights are copyrights, trademarks/service marks are trademarks/service marks. Different laws, different rights, but some similar concepts.

    Reply
  115. Thomas -  February 20, 2012 - 9:49 pm

    I wonder if they copyrighted and registered the name. She is, after all, a PERSON (on paper). Don’t bother looking that up in a language dictionary, but rather in a LEGAL/LAW dictionary. They obviously know something and are in want of being “free,” and want her to grow up with some sort of “Sui juris” status. I’ve said too much already.

    Reply
  116. idiot = my cousin -  February 20, 2012 - 9:22 pm

    that’s RIDICULOUS!!!! Poor baby D:

    Reply
  117. idiot = me -  February 20, 2012 - 9:13 pm

    ooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmggggggggggggggggggg

    THT BABY SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ADORABLE!!!!!!!!!
    :D ^^;

    Reply
  118. Mia -  February 20, 2012 - 7:31 pm

    i think this is ridiculous! people (Especially celebrities) nowadays are sooooooooooooo…UGH!
    i don’t want to be prejudice or anything, but OMGosh!!!! That’s so stupid!
    i feel really bad for that child when it grows up.

    What has this world become??????

    Reply
  119. mary torres -  February 20, 2012 - 7:23 pm

    the baby is very BEAUTIFUL :)

    Reply
  120. Hayley -  February 20, 2012 - 7:22 pm

    I just honestly think it’s a stupid name in the first place..

    Reply
  121. mary torres -  February 20, 2012 - 7:19 pm

    @GRAMMAR BULLY I SWAIR U WONT SAY THAT TO MY 16 YEAR OLD FACE WATCH WHAT U SAY :0 PATA !

    Reply
  122. shveta -  February 20, 2012 - 6:58 pm

    seriously. blue, ppl gonna mock her to tears in middle school. i wud hv done that.. if she wud been in ma school… any ways wud luv to see wat dey gonna do abt it

    Reply
  123. Ray D -  February 20, 2012 - 6:49 pm

    I think it’s a ridiculous name. I understand they’re planning a baby product line around the name. But I can just see the hazing… Blue Poison Ivy… Poor kid.

    Reply
  124. Paula -  February 20, 2012 - 6:13 pm

    Ick. I meant “competes,” not “compete’s.”

    Reply
  125. smartass -  February 20, 2012 - 6:00 pm

    @ me: It’s ‘ridiculous’. Not ‘rediculous’. Look it up. I don’t think you should be schooling Mary T. or anyone else on their spelling.

    Reply
  126. Paula -  February 20, 2012 - 5:53 pm

    Ali: No, it’s not normal. Not even a little.

    Bree: Read again. That’s not what the article says.

    Reply
  127. Christyle -  February 20, 2012 - 5:50 pm

    Wow Blue Ivy iz a wonderful name i wonder how they thought of it <3<3<3<3

    Reply
  128. Paula -  February 20, 2012 - 5:50 pm

    I wish them luck creating a line of baby products that compete’s with the existing Carter’s brand without a lawsuit or two.

    Reply
  129. Christyle -  February 20, 2012 - 5:49 pm

    Wow Blue Ivy is a wonderful name i wonder how they thought of that name
    <3

    Reply
  130. Playful Redd -  February 20, 2012 - 5:39 pm

    I THINK THAT IT’S THE UGLIEST NAME EVER! WHEN I HEARD IT, I COULDN’T TELL IF IT WAS A DISEASE OR A PET’S NAME. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING A CELEB DOES, DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE HATING ON THEM. EVERYONE HAS THEIR OPINION AND IS ENTITLED TO IT. THERE ARE FANATICS OUT THERE THAT WILL WIPE A CELEBS BUT IF ASKED. I RESPECT THEIR BUSINESS SENSE; THAT’S ONE OF THE REASON’S THEIR MARRIED. HOWEVER, THEY SHOULD HAVE COME UP WITH A BETTER NAME FOR SUCH A BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRL.

    Reply
  131. whatnow!? -  February 20, 2012 - 5:06 pm

    ok seriously who care what they did and WHO even did it!! i mean if it was some random person deciding to trademark their name nobody would even care>
    though i agree since she is gonna be famous i would NOT want the name Blue Ivy…..

    Reply
  132. JC -  February 20, 2012 - 4:55 pm

    Cafe Hon in Baltimore has recently tried to trademark the word “HON”.
    I don’t see that going well for them. That term has been in use since the 50s. Perhaps even longer.

    Reply
  133. Kirumi -  February 20, 2012 - 4:34 pm

    Trademarking a name????? Not hatin on Jay-Z or Beyonce or anything but that makes no absolute sense. With all this goin on I hope the babys not spoiled. Blue Ivy’s a pretty name, but really. That’s STUPID!

    Reply
  134. TETO -  February 20, 2012 - 4:09 pm

    YESTERDAY I HAD ANOTHER BIRTHDAY. EVERY YEAR I AM MORE DISGUSTED WITH WHAT PEOPLE PLACE IMPORTANCE ON . I’D HAVE TO TRY REALLY HARD TO CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. YOU ALL LOOK STUPID TO ME.

    Reply
  135. m.c. -  February 20, 2012 - 3:26 pm

    does ivy come in blue?

    Reply
  136. tokiwartooth -  February 20, 2012 - 3:14 pm

    oh, and um…… isn’t ivy green? it’s the green stuff in plants, right? sooo……. blue ivy………doesn’t really…oh, never mind.

    Reply
  137. tokiwartooth -  February 20, 2012 - 3:09 pm

    ok, first of all, Attention Deficite…oh look shiny, omg me and my friends do that! (im talking about your name) cuz I have ADD and i really do that sometimes, so they say i have ADOS- attention deficite- ooh, shiny! ya. aaanyways, i like the name (blue ivy carter) its unique. i think, for a celebrity, it was somewhat smart to trademark their baby’s name, for business purposes mostly, cuz a lot of people would try to use her name as the name for a clothing line, and plus, i think it would be kinda cool to grow up, firstly, as an automatic celeb, and secondly, with a trademarked name. Also, it’s kind of stupid, when i think about it, that people comment about how they dont like something and they frivolously talk crap about these people when they really don’t have the right to. I also don’t enjoy the superfluous profanity that is being used to hate on these people. YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK CRAP ABOUT THESE PEOPLE AS IF THEY WERE OBJECTS THAT WERE CONTROLLED AND ANIMATED BY SOCIETY FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT AND NOT ACTUAL PEOPLE. DEAL WITH IT.

    Reply
  138. mary torres -  February 20, 2012 - 2:58 pm

    @BRB YES SPANISH IS MY FRIST SO IM TRYING TO LEARN MOR OF ENGLISH IM FROM CLEVELAND BUT WAS RAISED IN PUERTO RICO LOL THANKS FOR UNDERSTANDING ME UNLIKE OTHER PEOPLE ON HERE :)

    Reply
  139. mary torres -  February 20, 2012 - 2:52 pm

    DONT BE HATIN ON ME

    Reply
  140. Maddy M. -  February 20, 2012 - 1:50 pm

    I understand why they’d do that. All of a sudden everyone’s going to be trying to make ‘Blue Ivy Carter’ baby bottles and diapers. It would get out of control.

    Reply
  141. Euphoric-ness -  February 20, 2012 - 1:47 pm

    Absolutely ridiculous. Way too over-protective. Poor child.

    Reply
  142. peter -  February 20, 2012 - 1:33 pm

    Anyone who trademarks their kids name is WAY TOO FULL OF THEMSELVES.

    Reply
  143. Bob Dole -  February 20, 2012 - 1:25 pm

    I agree with Hannah. Possession of abstractions like names and other words or phrases is incredibly ludicrous. It’s human language, and many of us speak a common tongue. Why should there be limitations?

    Reply
  144. Megan -  February 20, 2012 - 1:17 pm

    To be honest, I think this is a popular trend in the world of celebrities. Let’s face it, whenever you read an article about actors or singers having babies, they oftentimes use names that are unique to say the least, or words that are not usually used as a name. Personally, I think it’s the idea that if you give your child a name that’s uncommon or being used for the first time, or in this case is trademarked, the child will be original and special, not a carbon copy.

    I don’t think any baby is a carbon-copy, but really, what’s makes a child named Zuma or Blue Ivy different from a child name Charlie or Anna?

    Reply
  145. Jeff -  February 20, 2012 - 12:51 pm

    I suspect that trademarking their baby’s name was more of a defensive move to stop others from releasing a line of products in the baby’s name without their permission. This way, they would have the ability to either prevent someone from profiting off their celebrity, block poor quality or inappropriate products from appearing using their baby’s name, or just have final approval on products that are appropriately licensed to use the name (and receiving the financial rewards of this). I’m sure if any of our kids had the notoriety of theirs, we would hate to see their name used on a line of cheap and ugly imported baby items.

    Reply
  146. B Stevens -  February 20, 2012 - 12:37 pm

    I honestly don’t think they were trademarking the baby’s name for personal reasons but business. They probably are wanting to make a clothing line, nursery products, etc, and want to call it “Blue Ivy Carter” baby products or something like that. Therefore, they would need to trademark the name. They also are probably wanting to prevent other people from opening up business and nameing it after their child.

    Reply
  147. surferdude (no patent) -  February 20, 2012 - 12:05 pm

    All fame is fleeting…all ego embarrassing…in time, only the embarrassment will remain.

    Reply
  148. CandyGirl -  February 20, 2012 - 11:57 am

    Hey ya’ll what up? Anyone play sociotown?

    Reply
  149. Cliff -  February 20, 2012 - 10:18 am

    The idea of trademarking a person’s name is ridiculous. Would you be proud to say,”I’m the only Booze Ivy Garter (or whatever) allowed? What stupidity. BTW, remember, the public is prone to a mental disorder that tells us that a “celebrity” is an expert on all things. They tend to be quite stupid in certain facets (like many of us).

    Reply
  150. Read this Karlee Farf -  February 20, 2012 - 9:59 am

    @Karlee Farf

    Wow Karlee Farf seriously… I mean come on, “Blue Icy is such a beautiful name. It flows very nicely.” Blue IVY. You need to get your eyes checked.

    Oh and have a great day! <3

    P.S. I did the <3 just for you!

    Reply
  151. NHB -  February 20, 2012 - 9:54 am

    Very pretty name :)

    Reply
  152. Tia Mya -  February 20, 2012 - 9:42 am

    Why would someone want to fight over a name like Blue Ivy…mkes me itchy(LOL)!!! That would be a cool company name but I don’t like the name for a baby.

    P.S. This is off topic but no one should read the Great Gatsby… what a horrible book!!!! BLEH Totally hate it right now!!!!!

    Reply
  153. Moni -  February 20, 2012 - 9:33 am

    What in the world??? Isn’t this “Dictionary.com”??? Why are over 1/2 of these comments full of misspelled words? Yikes! :)

    Reply
  154. ciuincalled -  February 20, 2012 - 9:28 am

    You’ve created a well-written and thought-provoking explanation of trademark law, especially as it pertains to this family. I suspect, as do several others here, that they are considering a line of baby items, but, perhaps more importantly for the well-being of the child, they are protecting her against someone else, unrelated, doing the same. Nicely done, un-credited writer.

    Reply
  155. John K -  February 20, 2012 - 8:56 am

    No wonder they had’ta block off the entire floor of the hospital when the baby arrived. Those two celebrity geniuses needed to work out all the legalities regarding trademark so that their child may only be exploited by *they*selves. The celebrity culture and worship in this country reaches nauseating new levels every day it seems.

    Reply
  156. jacob -  February 20, 2012 - 8:55 am

    also why

    Reply
  157. jacob -  February 20, 2012 - 8:54 am

    lol

    Reply
  158. Patricia -  February 20, 2012 - 8:37 am

    Obviously they’re trademarking it so other companies wouldn’t be able to benefit off Blue Ivy’s name. Why are people being so ridiculous?

    Reply
  159. ruby13 -  February 20, 2012 - 8:28 am

    that is over the top!

    Reply
  160. Neb -  February 20, 2012 - 8:02 am

    I don’t care who the idots you guys are. The artical clearly says “Before Jay-Z and Beyoncé submitted their application, two other people tried to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter.” However, the US Patent and Trademark Office said no because it is illegal to register a trademark with illegitimate affiliation with a celebrity. What does that mean? You cannot trademark someone else’s name or image without their explicit permission, particularly in the case of celebrities, so the other attempts to trademark “Blue Ivy Carter” were rejected.” That means that people can’t go and tradmark the celeb’s baby’s name once the name gets out to the public. Oh and by the way the name tradmarked was “Blue Ivy Carter” Not Blue Ivy so if other people name their baby “Blue Ivy Lastname” They can trademark it if their LASTNAME IS NOT CARTER. So stop sayin that other people are wronged.

    Reply
  161. Muphin -  February 20, 2012 - 7:48 am

    If they were the first to use the words for a human name, than so be it.
    However, there are important things to talk about, worry about and
    discuss in this evil, cruel, and hatred world. Go with God!

    Reply
  162. Patrick -  February 20, 2012 - 7:35 am

    Duh! I must correct my correction. Say would be slander, written would be libel. Proselytes can also have premature exclamations.

    Reply
  163. Patrick -  February 20, 2012 - 7:31 am

    Actually, if you did “say” something bad about the baby that would not be libel, it would be slander. If you “wrote” or published something bad, that would be libel.

    Dictionary.com proselytes can be persnickety.

    Reply
  164. G. P. -  February 20, 2012 - 7:24 am

    the child born to Greg Allman was named Blue-many years ago.
    also, there is a line of baby items already named Carter, which is a trademark. Carter should sue them if they try to use the name Carter as part of a baby items business.

    Reply
  165. maximonk -  February 20, 2012 - 6:34 am

    While it is interesting to see that comments on a dictionary newsletter are full of spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors, what is really apalling is to see how many totally misunderstood what this article is about. It does NOT say that these people are planning to open a business using their daughter’s name.

    Reply
  166. Atrain -  February 20, 2012 - 5:26 am

    Horrible name given to a cute kid by horrible people.

    Reply
  167. Heather -  February 20, 2012 - 4:58 am

    I really don’t care for the name, as far as trade marking goes; Money does amamzing things when you pay enough….

    Reply
  168. freak -  February 20, 2012 - 3:09 am

    When I first heard about this, I thought they were crazy, but now I think I understand. They are just trying to prevent other people from using the baby’s name to make money.

    If that is in fact their reason, then I agree.

    Reply
  169. John -  February 20, 2012 - 2:57 am

    Nothing new here. It is kind of silly, but Harlan Ellison has trade marked his name. Been that way for some time.

    Reply
  170. brb -  February 20, 2012 - 2:25 am

    @Mary Torres, “Me”, and C.A.L.

    Mary, if English is your second language (or a foreign language you are learning), you are forgiven. Otherwise, it’s hard to forgive what you’ve done.

    Me (i.e., the person whose username is “Me”), you blasted Mary for her incorrect spelling and then wrote “rediculous”. Truly ridiculous.

    C.A.L, you must be kidding or trolling. You also took it upon yourself to correct others while writing “your going to…” Unbelievable. If you have to ask why that’s a problem, you should stop posting here altogether.

    By the way, I have posted comments before in which the apostrophes were removed somehow, so as a disclaimer, I did write “it’s” with an apostrophe in my note to Mary. And finally, if I have made any mistakes in this comment, may God have mercy on my soul. NOw yOo oll halve a guud daay!

    Reply
  171. mwaababe -  February 20, 2012 - 1:29 am

    i think that the baby name is a bit to long nd should make it shorter but i love the baby really cute :D

    Reply
  172. ryan -  February 20, 2012 - 1:00 am

    they’re crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  173. Lia -  February 20, 2012 - 12:36 am

    Should be ivy blue carter. Then her friends will call her ivy carter but blue ivy carter, then her friends will call her blue carter?

    Reply
  174. Mahle -  February 19, 2012 - 11:36 pm

    I think this is completely and utterly stupid. There is absolutely no reason why Jay Z and Beyonce felt the need to trademark their baby’s name. This just goes to prove how pathetic this world keeps getting.

    Reply
  175. Archon -  February 19, 2012 - 11:20 pm

    Pardon me C.A.L., this is DICTIONARY.COM, if YOU’RE going to comment, please spell-check and use proper punctuation.

    Reply
  176. Jackson -  February 19, 2012 - 10:47 pm

    PSST! I play Roblox!!!!!

    Reply
  177. Jackson -  February 19, 2012 - 10:46 pm

    I dont understand really, on ACA 1 time they were gonna sue a company called mike donalds or something like that…. wierd…. Any way i think thats unfair that mike donalds got sued :-(

    Reply
  178. Miki -  February 19, 2012 - 10:42 pm

    I`m under the impression that they trademarked the name to prevent any ol` Joe Blow off the streets from making a baby clothing/stuff line using their kid`s name, riding the Beyonce-Z coattails, so to speak. Because they`re famous, there is always a chance someone would try to capitalize on their child. I actually think it`s a good idea, whether they start a baby goods line themselves or not, to protect the baby`s rights.

    Reply
  179. Pygmy -  February 19, 2012 - 10:32 pm

    I think it’s actually a rather interesting instance of foresight. They don’t want their baby’s name appearing on a line of baby products or child’s toys or something and have companies try to cash in on the baby’s name however indirectly.

    It’s weird, certainly, but not as horrible as it sounds at first blush.

    Reply
  180. Chea -  February 19, 2012 - 9:42 pm

    @ jones vernon uushona

    I’m sure it’s possible that Beyonce may stumble across Dictionary.com every oncein a blue moon, but I’m pretty sure she’s not trolling for talent… might wanna get a day job.

    Reply
  181. viv hare -  February 19, 2012 - 8:49 pm

    you got what? Blue Ivy? Anybody got calazime?

    Reply
  182. viv hare -  February 19, 2012 - 8:43 pm

    Gosh, I was gonna name my baby Blue Ivy. Oh well, guess I’ll go with Purple Haze. That must be what they were in when they thought of that name…O, n e body think its taken. Trademark, here we come.

    Reply
  183. Billy Peters -  February 19, 2012 - 8:36 pm

    You say, “you could start a restaurant or a line of hotels called Versace.”

    Considering the caselaw, I don’t think you can make such a sweeping statement. Versace could trademark that name for any product or service associated with the luxury Versace image. If Edward Versace wanted to trademark his restaurant and was born with the name Edward Versace, then probably yes. If Burger King wanted to start an upscale restaurant chain and call it “Versace Restaurant,” Versace the company very likely would prevail in a trademark infringement action.

    You state, “the US Patent and Trademark Office itself does not pursue copyright infringement suits” and “the owner of a trademark has legal permission to sue someone for copyright infringement.” In a trademark case, you don’t sue for copyright infringement. You sue for trademark infringement. Copyright and trademark are two different beasts.

    As well, you don’t need “legal permission to sue” from anyone. There’s no such a legal concept. You can sue anyone without permission — you simply pay the filing fee. Whether the case can survive will depend on the other side’s legal prowess.

    Reply
  184. Jonathan Smith -  February 19, 2012 - 7:28 pm

    WHY IS THAT BABY’S HAIR SO STRAIGHT!?!?

    WHO IS REALLY THE DAD????

    Reply
  185. JP -  February 19, 2012 - 7:23 pm

    Of course, it is wise for celebrities to trademark names, children or not. The Trademark’s Office rules are not prejudiced toward celebreties. It is just that if one is not a celebrity, there would be be no cause to apply for a trademark. Yes, Beyonce was smart, and her decision shows that she has professional legal counsel. Many of these other opinions I see here have no basis in ration reasoning. They are just emotional outbursts.

    Reply
  186. Denmark -  February 19, 2012 - 7:18 pm

    So dumb they are so rich they think that they can trade mark the shape of their noses!

    Reply
  187. mr jones -  February 19, 2012 - 7:04 pm

    What’s up with people spelling everything wrong? Does no one realize this is dictionary.com?

    Reply
  188. Writeaholic -  February 19, 2012 - 6:44 pm

    Seriously? Wth do we care? That name is just a word. And words belong to no one. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart. *dead eyed stare* Whatever. It’s just a word

    Reply
  189. Silly -  February 19, 2012 - 6:27 pm

    The comments section is way more interesting than the actual article!

    Reply
  190. Chili -  February 19, 2012 - 6:23 pm

    I think some of you are missing the point. The article did not say that two other “COUPLES” tried to trademark the name and were refused. It said that two other people tried and were rejected. That means that once the baby’s name was revealed, joe blow and sue blue tried to get trademarks on the child’s name, KNOWING that mom and dad (or the child at a later date) would do something with that name. They would own it, and mom and dad and baby would either have to pay them for use of the name, or be SOL. The others that were rejected had nothing to do with the amount of money either of them have. They did not get any special treatment because they are celebrities or have money. It’s the law, plain and simple, and it just happened to work in their behalf.

    Reply
  191. mary torres -  February 19, 2012 - 6:17 pm

    there is a spanish rapper named IVY QUEEN :)

    Reply
  192. xrobotlove -  February 19, 2012 - 5:24 pm

    Isn’t this a dictionary based blog? Why are there so many ridiculous spelling errors in the comments? Then again, I found it just as annoying that a ton of people used the handy thesaurus to… “smartatize” their comments. I felt a nonsensical word was necessary. Honestly “douche-atize” is better fitting.
    Anyway, I agree its most likely a business related decision. Not sure why they chose Blue Ivy though. I choose names like Azrielle and Ezra, and even I think Blue Ivy is a stupid name.

    Reply
  193. Xavier -  February 19, 2012 - 5:23 pm

    That baby looks like a puppet… just like her parents. A buttiful puppet indeed.

    Reply
  194. david bean -  February 19, 2012 - 5:05 pm

    Soheil Abedian of the Sunland Group visited the House of Versace in 1997 to propose the idea of a Versace branded hotel.[1] Palazzo Versace Gold Coast was one of the first Fashion Branded Hotels. There are more, and this sort of branding is under copywrite

    Reply
  195. Lynda -  February 19, 2012 - 4:18 pm

    Wow, I underestimated this article. I learned so much about what I needed to know about trademarking just from the commotion around trademarking a newborns’ name.

    The moment I heard that the name Blue Ivy Carter was going to be trademarked, I quickly assumed in uneducated disapproval that its pretty ridiculous to prevent others to name their child with the same name just because of status. And if it is allowed, then this permission shouldn’t be limited to just a high status couple; since america is supposedly the land of equality.

    Now I understand that the child’s name is trademarked to a certain category of goods and services and I needed to the distinctions of trademarking as a aspired business owner.

    And now I have a list of terms that I need to learn more of in detail before establishing one.
    copyrighting
    copyright infringement
    copyright language
    trademarked words covered under the doctrine of fair use
    libel issues

    Awesome, thank you.
    From what I’ve learned so far from this article, I seems to me that trademarking laws are reasonable and relevant especially when resolving issues such as the one that was between Lasting Impressions I Inc and KP Permanent Make Up Inc and the word microcolors.

    A set of rules and regulations/boundaries are not only made for children. lol

    Especially when money is involved.

    Reply
  196. Kayh -  February 19, 2012 - 4:01 pm

    Your claim and Beyonce and Jay-Z own the trademark BLUE IVY CARTER is not correct. They have merely filed to register the trademark, but filing does not grant ownership. Ownership comes with use in commerce. BLUE IVY CARTER must be used in commerce on all the items listed in the trademark registration application before there can be any claim to ownership of the name as a trademark. However, the trademark must also be unique in the marketplace of the goods covered by the application. It this case, someone else already owns a registration for BLUE IVY and has used the name for their retail business for over ten years. This trademark registration has been sited in a first refuseal of the registration application on BLUE IVY CARTER. B & JZ will have to 1) use their child’s name as a trademark in U.S. commerce, and (2) overcome the Trademark Office’s objection to registration based on the prior existing mark. With their money, they can probably very easily buy out the rights of the party that owns BLUE IVY and thus, overcome the Trademark Office’s refusal.

    Reply
  197. anonymous -  February 19, 2012 - 2:47 pm

    Isnt there baby name the same as the devils daughters name???

    Reply
  198. Carter Ivy Blue -  February 19, 2012 - 1:55 pm

    AND…..they make wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much money for doing NOTHING! So what – they can sing (matter of opinion) and slut around in a video! (that will help this GIRL baby learn the true value of women in their freaky filled world! And JZ is one UGGGGGLY dude! poor kid! We need to stop supporting these ‘artists’ (again matter of opinion). They want to be PAID for every time a note is uttered – they probably want to trademark musical notes next! Do painters get PAID everytime someone looks at their paintings? Do writers get PAID everytime someone reads their book? These over inflated egotistical UNreality living ‘people’ that call themselves ‘artists’ need to be taken down a notch or a MILLION! it is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of hand!

    Reply
  199. MarkG -  February 19, 2012 - 1:52 pm

    I don’t know when Ivy got named Blue
    Don’t know what’s come over you two
    You’ve found someone you can sue
    And don’t it make my Brown Ivy blue ?

    I’ll be fine when the police have gone
    I’ll just cry all night long
    Please say it isn’t true
    That I can’t rename my Brown Ivy “Blue”.
    ——————————-
    Boy, I wonder who’s going to sue me first.
    Beyonce or Crystal Gayle . . .

    Reply
  200. Hong -  February 19, 2012 - 1:51 pm

    I love the name, it is very unique.

    Reply
  201. JJRousseau -  February 19, 2012 - 1:50 pm

    Blueberry Carter’s Liver Pills. Famously.

    Reply
  202. JJRousseau -  February 19, 2012 - 1:48 pm

    Blue Ivy League Dolls, Oui?

    Reply
  203. Isee Inpoetry -  February 19, 2012 - 1:44 pm

    I don’t understand why some people choose to comment before reading the entire article? We are all rather quick to judge without having all of the facts. I think this truth is more news worthy than what the article is about. Even though anonymity is golden on website forums and blogs, the ignorance and grammatically incorrect responses will forever go down in history for our future generations to later study- how disheartening.

    Reply
  204. FLORIDA GIRL -  February 19, 2012 - 1:26 pm

    AVA SOUNDS LIKE A HATER. HAVING YOUR 1ST CHILD IS A BIG DEAL AND IS EXCITING FOR EVERY PARENT. GET OVER YOURSELF YOU HAD THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES IN LIFE THAT THEY DID. ENVY IS AN UGLY TRAIT…

    Reply
  205. love -  February 19, 2012 - 1:20 pm

    Beyonce & JayZ…these people disgust me.

    Reply
  206. Carter Ivy Blue -  February 19, 2012 - 1:17 pm

    Ok so I clicked on this article too! It is just another example of why celebs and their off spring go off the rails! Paris wanting to trademark ‘You’re Hot’ and Trump trying to trademark ‘You’re Fired”. How about we give ‘em ALL YOU’RE NUTS! ….or any of these would do just as well….ape, barmy, bats in the belfry, batty, berserk, bonkers, cracked, crazed, cuckoo, daft, delirious, demented, deranged, dingy, dippy, erratic, flaky, flipped, flipped out, freaked out, fruity, idiotic, insane, kooky, lunatic, mad, mad as a March hare, mad as a hatter, maniacal, mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, nutty as fruitcake, of unsound mind, out of one’s mind, out of one’s tree, out to lunch, potty, psycho, round the bend, schizo, screw loose, screwball, screwy, silly, touched, unbalanced, unglued, unhinged, unzipped, wacky

    Reply
  207. mili -  February 19, 2012 - 1:06 pm

    (h)

    Reply
  208. jones vernon uushona -  February 19, 2012 - 12:51 pm

    pls beyonce help me…i wanna become a comedy actor pls pls…

    Reply
  209. jones vernon uushona -  February 19, 2012 - 12:49 pm

    i wanna become an actor ps help me…i wanna support my fam in namibia pls beyonce help me live my dream.

    Reply
  210. Kevin -  February 19, 2012 - 12:39 pm

    I think it’s pointless. While it’s great that they loved their child enough to trademark her name. You just really have to think. Why? What are they trying to do by trademarking her name?
    If they plan to start some sort of business with her name then sure. But if they’re trademarking her name just for the hell of it. Then they really need to find something better with their time.

    Reply
  211. Char -  February 19, 2012 - 12:32 pm

    That’s ridiculous! Why would you trademark your daughters name?! Tho I am confused.. Can other people name their child ”Blue Ivy” or not?

    Reply
  212. HG -  February 19, 2012 - 12:21 pm

    You say, “you could start a restaurant or a line of hotels called Versace.”

    Considering the caselaw, I don’t think you can make such a sweeping statement. Versace could trademark that name for any product or service associated with the luxury Versace image. If Edward Versace wanted to trademark his restaurant and was born with the name Edward Versace, then probably yes. If Burger King wanted to start an upscale restaurant chain and call it “Versace Restaurant,” Versace the company very likely would prevail in a trademark infringement action.

    You state, “the US Patent and Trademark Office itself does not pursue copyright infringement suits” and “the owner of a trademark has legal permission to sue someone for copyright infringement.” In a trademark case, you don’t sue for copyright infringement. You sue for trademark infringement. Copyright and trademark are two different beasts.

    As well, you don’t need “legal permission to sue” from anyone. There’s no such a legal concept. You can sue anyone without permission — you simply pay the filing fee. Whether the case can survive will depend on the other side’s legal prowess.

    Reply
  213. ADA -  February 19, 2012 - 12:20 pm

    Considering this article is part of dictionary.com, the first three comments on this article are just depressing.

    Reply
  214. C.A.L. -  February 19, 2012 - 12:15 pm

    Pardon me, but Mary and Yusuf, this is DICTIONARY.COM if your going to comment please spell-check and use proper grammer.

    Reply
  215. N8 -  February 19, 2012 - 12:15 pm

    First of all, those are some amazing comments on the question.
    Second, why did they even want to trademark their child’s name? Were they afraid someone was going to start a line of baby clothes in their child’s name? I think this just shows how insane the celebrity mind can be. It’s actually probably more like the tip of the iceberg.

    Reply
  216. geeb -  February 19, 2012 - 12:14 pm

    The name is ridiculous in my opinion and the trademark thing sounds like a publicity stunt. I have nothing against them, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who is shaking their head at what the world is becoming.

    Reply
  217. Charity -  February 19, 2012 - 12:11 pm

    Hmmm… Interesting. I never knew you could copyright a person’s name.

    Reply
  218. Cliff -  February 19, 2012 - 12:09 pm

    This couple is a business; and their business has birthed a product. I was going to say that this is a fair analogy but I don’t think it’s an analogy, after all. They’re protecting their future business potential through legal means, that’s all.

    Reply
  219. steve -  February 19, 2012 - 12:06 pm

    baby products.. trademarked names..? Don”t some people have enough money already or do they feel it necessary to sell their child’s identity for the sake of further, superfluous success?

    Its a matter of opinion I guess. but yer, Jay-Z you guna be such a great dad your guna have to tell the whole world about it.

    im only playing…

    Reply
  220. James Earl Ray -  February 19, 2012 - 12:04 pm

    They are two money grubbing n!ggers!!!

    Reply
  221. Sunny -  February 19, 2012 - 11:46 am

    I think it’s a wise business move. Too many unscrupulous people out there trying to cash in on celeb affiliations… it’s a way to protect their assets, and of course, baby Blue.

    Reply
  222. chris-style -  February 19, 2012 - 11:35 am

    I feel that trademarking the baby’s name was a waste of time. It’s like they are trying to be the first at everything for the child from Jay-z writing the song about her and then giving her credit for making it so that she is the youngest person to have created a song, trying to beat Stevie Wonder from when he did it for his daughter. And now the trademarking of her name. I would just like to know what’s the purpose of trademarking her name. There main concern should just be trying to provide good love to the baby and not trying to put her at the top of the list because that’s what they world is expecting to see.

    Reply
  223. samantha -  February 19, 2012 - 11:20 am

    cuteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i love your baby

    Reply
  224. Hamachisn't -  February 19, 2012 - 11:10 am

    This article tells me to brace myself for the arrival (within a few years) of a line of baby-related products. “We’re not making enough money; we’re going to sell our baby’s name everywhere too.”

    Reply
  225. grammar police -  February 19, 2012 - 11:07 am

    Is Mary trying to say the child is beautiful because it is full of beauty, or is she trying to say the child is buttiful because of full of butti.

    Reply
  226. Diwakar -  February 19, 2012 - 11:04 am

    Trademarking a name is not right in my opinion, be it by celebrity or any common man.

    Reply
  227. Hunnit Acres -  February 19, 2012 - 11:02 am

    Awesome!! That Lends Some Credibility To That Strawman Stuff I Been Hearing About!

    Reply
  228. Sathvik Vuthaluthana -  February 19, 2012 - 10:52 am

    Double comment!

    Reply
  229. Sathvik Vuthaluthana -  February 19, 2012 - 10:52 am

    Hi peoples!

    Reply
  230. C. Burns -  February 19, 2012 - 10:49 am

    Personally I think Jay-Z and Beyonce are a tad full of themselves. First, they cordoned the hospital and now they think they are the only one’s who ever named a child. Blahhh….grow up. For the record, I used to like both of them and their music.

    Reply
  231. Deve -  February 19, 2012 - 10:42 am

    I believe its a great idea to trademark the name, simply because its a very unique name of such. Now get back to work BEY

    Reply
  232. j -  February 19, 2012 - 10:38 am

    lol really blue ivy carter? this goes right up there with “Blanket”… poor kid

    Reply
  233. John of the Jungle -  February 19, 2012 - 10:36 am

    I think trademarking a baby’s name is more a demonstration of the parents’ over-inflated egos than anything else. Honestly, what makes them think the name is so freaking great that anyone would even WANT to copy it? …other than a handful of freakish Beyonce fans (I’m guessing the other two applicants belonged in this category). Apologies to the couple’s fans, but seriously I think of it as just another dorky celebrity name…though it’s certainly not as moronic as some other monikers celebrities have saddled their children with (frankly I think it’s the epidermal talking sometimes : p) At least Beyonce didn’t try to name her Oranjello.

    Reply
  234. Mike McKelvy -  February 19, 2012 - 10:12 am

    One way to copyright your name is your own domain. I waited over 10 years until mine became available.

    Reply
  235. Grammar Bully -  February 19, 2012 - 10:00 am

    Buttiful? Really? You think her name is full of butts? Dictionary.com is one click away and you can’t seem to spell BEAUTIFUL correctly? How did you figure out how to get to THE SOAR US.com?

    Reply
  236. Kevin -  February 19, 2012 - 9:59 am

    I’m not bothered in the slightest.

    Reply
  237. Meta4rikal Mindz -  February 19, 2012 - 9:57 am

    J and B are such extremely smart celebs! It’s good to see how much brain power they bring to the table as well as art!

    Reply
  238. bob -  February 19, 2012 - 9:46 am

    im sorry it’s actually Blue ivy carter who names their child blue ivy??? that child i already know is gonna be teased to death because of its name

    Reply
  239. Xavier -  February 19, 2012 - 9:14 am

    Looks like a puppet… just like her parents.

    Reply
  240. sunny :) -  February 19, 2012 - 9:13 am

    but nobody should be able to reserve the right to a name that has been available since the beginning of time! i love beyonce and all but just cos their celebrities doesnt mean they can just barge in..

    Reply
  241. Roger -  February 19, 2012 - 9:05 am

    It is just new to Me, trademarking a name.But perhaps it is good an idea for Jay and Beyonce to limit on Their Daughter’s name. I feel so because many critics had negative attitude towards the name and it wouldn’t surprise anyone to wakeup one morning, and find that the name is used on a nasty product in order to provoke the concerned. Jay and Beyonce and Baby Ivy, I love You all.

    Reply
  242. Ellie -  February 19, 2012 - 9:04 am

    That’s a crazy name anyway. Why not name the second child, Pink, and the third one Yellow and the fourth one Orange, and etc. etc. Then we could call them the Crayon Kids. Heehee

    Reply
  243. Donnyboy -  February 19, 2012 - 9:01 am

    I read the article to obtain information. Besides that, I am only reminded by this article that so-called celebrities are so self absorbed and full of their own importance that every thing they do and say is for their own self-aggrandizement; hence this silly name for their child. They live in a world all their own without a clue as to the important things in life.

    Reply
  244. Eagleturtle -  February 19, 2012 - 8:59 am

    Trademark is indeed tricky.. I designed a graphic of a sea-turtle that carried a shield and a spear-like device. The shield says either ‘save the world’ or ‘good steward’ and the spear is formed with the letters comprising ECO-WARRIOR. 2 years AFTER I began publishing journals, postcards, posters, mugs, tee-shirts, keychains, etc using this graphic, someone was able to trademark the words ECO WARRIOR. No big deal until they stopped me from selling my wares through Zazzle.com I’m pretty sure they sell their own stuff through Zazzle, that’s how they noticed me. They probably got the idea from me. Gr-r-r-r-r-r-r.

    Popular Posts
    What’s the grossest sounding word in…
    The most beautiful-sounding word in …
    These words may be removed from some…
    Is “ironic” the most abused word in …
    “Liver tea and just us?” Why is when…
    Dictionary.com on Facebook

    Join in!
    215,158 people like Dictionary.com
    Word of the Day
    spruce
    to make neat or dapper (often followed b …
    More »
    Archive
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    azzle folks don’t want to be sued. I wish they would just try to sue ME, because I would WIN. But to even file a challenge with the USPTO would cost $300

    Reply
  245. Snipes -  February 19, 2012 - 8:55 am

    Hey Joan… no one cares.

    Reply
  246. john appleseed -  February 19, 2012 - 8:50 am

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Reply
  247. john appleseed -  February 19, 2012 - 8:48 am

    4th comment

    Reply
  248. Liño -  February 19, 2012 - 8:42 am

    Who….really cares?

    Reply
  249. cydnee -  February 19, 2012 - 8:38 am

    i think that it is OK it is just a name. :) :)

    Reply
  250. smurfette -  February 19, 2012 - 8:25 am

    smurfettes real name is coral

    Reply
  251. smurfette -  February 19, 2012 - 8:23 am

    i think it is a fadorable name fabulous and and adorable. on a beautiful child from a beautiful mother. beyonce is gorgeous.

    Reply
  252. Andrew -  February 19, 2012 - 8:17 am

    I can’t help but think, being born into a family of very rich, very famous celebrities and having your name trademarked… I can’t help thinking she’ll become a shallow spoiled brat.

    But who knows, maybe she’ll be the nicest most generous kid on the planet. As long as people don’t tell her she’s better than everyone else and the fame goes to her head at the age of four.
    This is exactly what they tried to avoid at the start of Harry Potter.

    Reply
  253. KT_Schreib -  February 19, 2012 - 8:09 am

    Now I’ll never be able to kick start that product line of pacifiers called Blue Ivy Carter. Alas. Back to the changing table…

    Reply
  254. Wesna Joseph -  February 19, 2012 - 8:07 am

    I believe the law and the way names are copy write is very importent for new businesses choosing a name for there business, In JayZ and Beyonce case the name is a way to extend the family business and with imagination create wealth for his family future.

    Reply
  255. Ebony -  February 19, 2012 - 8:02 am

    This article is nonsensical; the writer is mixing up copyright law with trademark law.

    If you have a trademark, you can’t sue for copyright infringement. Copyright is a COMPLETELY different set of laws, with a completely different purpose, and is governed by a different agency – the US Copyright Office.

    Trademark is about marks – logos, phrases, words, etc. Copyright law by contrast is about the “right to copy” creative works – so it covers written works, performances, artwork, etc. In order to be able to sue for copyright infringement, you actually have to file a version of whatever the work is with the USCO.

    “trademark fair use” in the example covers the Blue Ivy situation, but the book example has nothing to do with trademarks, that is all copyright.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

    Reply
  256. eunuchorn -  February 19, 2012 - 8:01 am

    what are you people doing on dictionary.com? i’m just confused

    Reply
  257. Olivia -  February 19, 2012 - 7:43 am

    It amkes sense so people can’t start making a baby line Blue Ivy Carter. But I really think that they are waaaaaaaaaaaaay cooler than they think they are. They are just regular people. (With a lot more money) :)

    Reply
  258. anonymess -  February 19, 2012 - 7:24 am

    Could I start a line of children’s products under the name of “Blue Ivy” (and just leave off the Carter)? Would that be fair?

    Reply
  259. Lenee -  February 19, 2012 - 7:18 am

    I’m gonna name my kid Pink Panther.

    Reply
  260. HDex -  February 19, 2012 - 7:12 am

    Seems fair to me.

    Reply
  261. snbixn -  February 19, 2012 - 7:11 am

    Reasonable? I think so.

    Reply
  262. renata -  February 19, 2012 - 7:02 am

    this baby is so lovable, and cute. Beyonce is one proud and happy mother. All best wishes to the family :)

    Reply
  263. the only sensible person left on earth -  February 19, 2012 - 6:53 am

    it’s a ridiculous name. blue. for heaven’s sake! I honestly thought beyonce would have more sense than that. obviously I was wrong!

    Reply
  264. shamika -  February 19, 2012 - 6:50 am

    That’s just unfair! Why should celebs get that privilege?! An irrational bias.

    Reply
  265. Anon -  February 19, 2012 - 6:49 am

    Yes, for the most part, the USPTO (Patent & Trademark Office) is fair & reasonable—and highly technical! One MUST have all of the facts in hand before launching into a venture like this (trademarking); there are many online manuals to guide one through trademarking.
    The PTO revises these manuals continually: the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the TTAB oversees infringements of trademarks and acts upon them as the legislative Board in oppositions and cancelations of trademarks.
    There is also a blog written for us laymen: http://thettablog.blogspot.com/

    Reply
  266. Rolo -  February 19, 2012 - 6:47 am

    Well, “fair use” is highly interpretive isn’t it?

    I remember hearing of someone who started a restaurant called “McSushi,” and you can guess what happened. Seemingly McDonalds has trademarked every conceivable food with “Mc” or “Mac” before it, so threatened to sue…… the owners changed the name of the restaurant. I have mixed feelings about that. Why should MacDonalds own the rights to a food they don’t, or may never serve?

    I understand Bordeaux owning the rights to calling wine by that name, though there are probably some good arguments against it if you are using the same grape. But owning intellectual property in general is a complex and tricky issue.

    Reply
  267. Dewey Lovett -  February 19, 2012 - 6:43 am

    Pfffffffffffffffffffffft…spft

    Reply
  268. Lynn -  February 19, 2012 - 6:23 am

    Whenever I hear the name I get a bit melancholic because the word “Blue” reminds me of the soulful music revolving around heartbreak and sadness (the Blues), while the word “Ivy” is often associated with the word “poison.” Both words easily lend themselves to sad or negative connotations, so I don’t know if this is really an inspired or positive name.

    Reply
  269. Bonnie -  February 19, 2012 - 6:20 am

    While I don’t generally follow the glut of gossip associated with Beyonce and Jay-Z, I have to admit that this decision to trademark their daughter’s name is a very smart business move. Given the frenzy that followed Blue Ivy’s development and birth, it’s only a matter of time before her parents come up with a clothing line sporting her name. And when that time comes (I’m guessing sooner rather than later), yet another instance of mass hysteria will inevitably follow. Get ready, Target: Here we go again.

    Reply
  270. Cella -  February 19, 2012 - 6:15 am

    I scrolled down to the comments and was disappointed to see that they really didn’t say anything. I was hoping someone would clarify or at least post the question that the above article left me wondering: Why did they trademark the name?

    The article points out what a trademark won’t do – it won’t mean other people can’t name their children Blue Ivy, and “even if a word is ‘trademarked’ it is still more or less a normal word.” The article also stated that “If we said something bad about the baby that would be a libel issue, which is an entirely different discussion.” So it sounds to me that there is really no benefit to trademarking the name.

    So, again, what is the purpose behind trademarking Blue Ivy Carter, what benefits does it bring her/her parents, and how does that affect the rest of the world – in what ways can we not use “Blue Ivy Carter” now that it is trademarked?

    As informative as the article is, it leaves me wanting for more information :)

    Reply
  271. Arnaldo B -  February 19, 2012 - 6:10 am

    On the 1st question: who cares? As to how reasonable and relevant trademark laws are, like everything else created by humans, they arise out of a need, or perceived need, then grow into a monster, such as when a Japanese food sector giant tried to trademark a natural fruit native to the Amazon (http://143.108.10.11/?art=832&bd=1&pg=1&lg=en). Give me a break.

    Reply
  272. Cadence -  February 19, 2012 - 5:51 am

    These people are so selfish. First, renting out an ENTIRE maternity ward so that no other person can go there in the hospital? Then, copywriting a baby’s name to make money! What’s next?!

    Reply
  273. C_Love -  February 19, 2012 - 5:50 am

    About the lamest thing I’ve ever heard of. How self-absorbed can you get?

    Reply
  274. Soz -  February 19, 2012 - 4:54 am

    Hey Joan – fail!

    Reply
  275. ccrow -  February 19, 2012 - 4:52 am

    Meh.

    Reply
  276. lol -  February 19, 2012 - 4:22 am

    lol’ing at the first comment guy,
    btw Blue Ivy Carter is an elegant name, I like it :)

    Reply
  277. Nick -  February 19, 2012 - 4:15 am

    Lol Joan, now you look a little foolish……..trademarking a baby’s name seems extreme to me, would this mean if I was writing a book or film myself, that I could not name one of the characters (not that I would want to) Blue Ivy Carter? If this is correct then I do not agree with it at all……how can we censor words in such a way? We should all have as much right and access to our languages vibrant tapestry, rich and poor alike.

    Reply
  278. mickeysweet -  February 19, 2012 - 3:38 am

    If I had to Trade mark my baby !!! well tht is a hard one…………….. :( :s
    cute name 4 a fact <3<3<3<3<3

    Reply
  279. Juni -  February 19, 2012 - 3:16 am

    Love the name Blue Ivy Carter.. I wish the Carter family the best..

    Reply
  280. Dave -  February 19, 2012 - 3:14 am

    Honestly. Do they think they own the human race because they make music? What a joke.
    My advice to anyone about to give birth is name your child Blue Ivy Carter. Then, after the trademark shit turns up. Sue Jay-Z and Beyoncé for human abuse. They suck. Before I read this crap, I liked them. No more.

    Reply
  281. Dave -  February 19, 2012 - 3:11 am

    Who do they think they are? Arrogant pricks!

    Reply
  282. bhjbhj -  February 19, 2012 - 3:04 am

    beautiful * :*

    Reply
  283. CGK -  February 19, 2012 - 2:48 am

    In my opinion trademarking a baby’s name is a pathological act of vanity.

    Reply
  284. schneider290 -  February 19, 2012 - 2:20 am

    The author used a popular current topic as a vessel to communicate a few interesting points on trademarking words. Unfortunately, said topic is so ‘popular’ that it gathers comments such as the two below me. Plus, the amount of errors and shitty writing in the comments is ironic – to say the least – considering this is part of the dictionary.com site. That’s all.

    Reply
  285. Billie -  February 19, 2012 - 2:08 am

    Does that mean that Blue Ivy will now have to write her name as Blue Ivy® ?

    Reply
  286. What can I say!!? -  February 19, 2012 - 1:41 am

    Utterly ridiculous!!!! These ‘celebrities’ really do need to get a grip on reality!

    Reply
  287. Ernest -  February 19, 2012 - 1:33 am

    When money talks puberty run,i love the name a beautiful child with a beatiful parent nd lot of money i wish am u girl!!!!!!.happy stay nd long life.

    Reply
  288. Harry coldsweat -  February 19, 2012 - 12:53 am

    Wow! what a previlege life they’ve got. Dear amiable spouse, u won’t beliv dis VALUE my son said i shud seek d hand of ur daughter in futuristic marriege for him becos he said he sees blue ivy carter as a princess.

    Reply
  289. sunny -  February 18, 2012 - 11:58 pm

    i think the trademarketing is dumb but the baby is a cutie

    Reply
  290. Andy Kaid -  February 18, 2012 - 11:35 pm

    I think Jay-Z and Beyoncé copywriting the name Blue Ivy Carter is ridiculous and shows their arrogance. These celebrities get full of themselves. It’s sad we feed into this arrogance by wasting money on them.

    Reply
  291. Zachary Luttner -  February 18, 2012 - 11:08 pm

    Reasonable and relevant to whom..?

    Reply
  292. Annie2220 -  February 18, 2012 - 10:25 pm

    What do I think about these spoiled, ‘celebrities’ and their over inflated egos, trademarking their baby’s name? I think it’s utterly ridiculous, and it’s, yet again, another example of how out of touch with the ‘real world’ these bozos are!!!

    Reply
  293. hollister -  February 18, 2012 - 10:17 pm

    emmm..nice!

    Reply
  294. Koto koto -  February 18, 2012 - 10:06 pm

    Zachamba

    Reply
  295. Vincent Lopez -  February 18, 2012 - 9:57 pm

    @ Mary Torres. Yes, beautiful baby however this child will grow up in the teachings of Satan if Sean and Beyonce fail to humble themselves unto thier creator and I dont mean acknowledging Him to be Lord because even Satan knows whom God is. Moreover, theres is validation to what I am speaking of. Blue Ivy has a demonic meaning when deciphered.

    Reply
  296. Acid -  February 18, 2012 - 9:31 pm

    They can trademark their baby’s name all they want. And may God give this baby a happy, healthy and long life, but this baby will still one day bite the dust like everybody else and it will go back into the same earth everyone else does.

    Why am I saying all this? They could have fed a few dying-of-hunger kids in africa instead of flushing money down the toilet trademarking their baby’s name.

    Reply
  297. dbstevens -  February 18, 2012 - 9:30 pm

    I’m wondering if mary torres is punning off the word “butt”…either way, the comment makes me chuckle. Thanks mary.

    Also I’m wondering how much it costs to trademark something (note to self: Google “trademark costs,” or something along those lines). What charities and/or other organizations could have benefited from that money?

    Reply
  298. Raincloud -  February 18, 2012 - 9:21 pm

    Their daughter’s name is a good conversational piece.

    Reply
  299. Anne -  February 18, 2012 - 9:18 pm

    This doesn’t really surprise me. I recently learned that it’s possible to insure any individual part of one’s body…

    @mary t., by “buttiful” you mean ‘craptastic’, right?

    Reply
  300. Christopher Schwinger -  February 18, 2012 - 9:03 pm

    This is an interesting article and helps me understand the legal ramifications better. I didn’t know trademarks weren’t the same as copyrights/plagiarism. The current system sounds reasonable to me concerning trademarks. It does seem to me, though, like it’s almost impossible to avoid getting in legal trouble for something or other, as much as you’d try to avoid unintentionally plagiarizing or offending someone, because the legal system has gotten so complicated. I hope the legal system never allows a celebrity to sue someone for naming a son or daughter after him.

    Reply
  301. Kathleen -  February 18, 2012 - 8:56 pm

    I love that name! A beautiful name for a baby for a beautiful new family.(:

    Reply
  302. Bill Blix (tm) -  February 18, 2012 - 8:44 pm

    Um…

    I trade marked my name, bill blix, just because of these two. They, the US Patent Office, rejected it because they said it was a stupid name to trademark.

    HEY! It is all I have and I ought be able to trademark Bill Blix under “a life” if I want too!

    Reply
  303. Serina -  February 18, 2012 - 8:40 pm

    Really, I don’t see the point, but I guess if they “can” do it, then hey, why not? Money can buy a lot of things, but love is not one of them and I feel for that baby when “life” gets complicated.

    Reply
  304. Momo -  February 18, 2012 - 8:37 pm

    Wow. Happy for their kid. (:

    Reply
  305. Crissy -  February 18, 2012 - 8:29 pm

    What kind of stuff is that! Really? So the people before Jay and B that tried to trademark the name was denied, but they get it approved. For get the law forget the cops! It’s all bull and we are not equal because this is a clear sign of if you have money you can have anything and get out of anything. Judges and Cops SUCK!

    Reply
  306. Cerulean -  February 18, 2012 - 8:17 pm

    Blue Ivy Carter is a lovely name… not sure why you’d trademark it though.

    Reply
  307. Emily -  February 18, 2012 - 8:10 pm

    That would be cool to be able to trademark “the”

    Reply
  308. Emily -  February 18, 2012 - 8:09 pm

    Awesome Name!!!!!!!
    Bravo ;)

    Reply
  309. Atrain -  February 18, 2012 - 8:08 pm

    This just proves that if you have money you can do whatever the hell you want to.

    Reply
  310. David -  February 18, 2012 - 7:49 pm

    This was a very interesting and useful, educational article. Thank you for publishing it.

    Reply
  311. Yugan Dali -  February 18, 2012 - 7:47 pm

    Thank you, Mom and Dad, for not naming me Blue Ivy Carter. And thank you for providing me with love and care, rather than a trademark.

    Reply
  312. asdf -  February 18, 2012 - 7:37 pm

    Yes, WHY did they trademark their kid’s name? This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve found out today. Hopefully someone will see the stupidity of it all and stop everyone else from doing it.

    Reply
  313. nattr94 -  February 18, 2012 - 7:26 pm

    wait, so this would mean that no other baby may have the name of Blue Ivy Carter? And what those that mean that it is trademarked under child and baby products ?

    Reply
  314. me -  February 18, 2012 - 6:59 pm

    lol to the first commenter

    Reply
  315. Madison -  February 18, 2012 - 6:44 pm

    I don’t think they should flatter themselves enough to think that anyone else would want to name their child Blue Ivy Carter. Along with the fact that they blocked a whole maternity ward to prevent people from taking “pictures” (which really just prevented parents from seeing their newborns,)…trade marking their child’s name is excessive.

    Reply
  316. erica dawn 6 -  February 18, 2012 - 6:38 pm

    o & i frogot Joan can you explain yourself??????

    Reply
  317. erica dawn 6 -  February 18, 2012 - 6:35 pm

    that is a cute name but it might be hard for the cute little girl to grow up with the first name of blue she might want to go by ivy esp. if it starts a trend like i dont know blue warner

    Reply
  318. yayRay Shell :) -  February 18, 2012 - 6:33 pm

    I think it’s fine to trademark their baby because it means she’s special, just as long as they don’t go over.

    I think trademark rules are reasonable. I like that there is such thing as fair use because…well…it’s fair.

    Reply
  319. KimK Lover -  February 18, 2012 - 6:26 pm

    Can I trademark Kim K. so i can have her all to myself

    Reply
  320. me -  February 18, 2012 - 6:02 pm

    cool

    Reply
  321. Grammar Nazi -  February 18, 2012 - 5:49 pm

    “Even though you can’t start a clothing line called Versace because that would infringe on the copyright, you could start a restaurant or a line of hotels called Versace.”

    I’m thinking you made the common mistake of thinking that “copyright” and trademark” are the same thing in this sentence, when I know you know they’re not the same thing.

    Reply
  322. sly -  February 18, 2012 - 4:38 pm

    So if someone uses this name will they have to pay??? I do not understand?

    Reply
  323. Casey -  February 18, 2012 - 4:31 pm

    I understand they may be thinking ahead, assuming someone may make a market of baby products using their daughter’s name, however, I still think that trademarking the name was a waste of money… I mean, many celebrities have babies and I have yet to hear some crazy fan trying to make a market of it.

    Reply
  324. Brian -  February 18, 2012 - 4:18 pm

    you people are on dictionary.com

    why don’t you learn to spell some of the words you are using and learn some proper grammar.

    Jay-Z and Beyonce and disgusting individuals who only take pride in what their money can do.

    Trademarking their child’s name is a ridiculous thing to do, and a display of their wealth and power.

    I think Jay-Z and Beyonce are worthless human beings who give nothing back to this world.

    Reply
  325. ali -  February 18, 2012 - 4:11 pm

    i am Persian . it is normal to call your child Blue Ivy Carter ?

    Reply
  326. CGK -  February 18, 2012 - 4:09 pm

    In my opinion it is pathetic that they would trademark a baby’s name, although unsurprisingly narcissistic, vain and self-centred. Unfortunately, the world has become so morally distorted that money allows for all sorts of abominations. In my opinion trademarking a child’s name and showering them with possessions worth millions of dollars only serves to ruin that child by giving them the impression that they are inherently superior to others and by destroying their sense of proportion and restraint. Further, if you give a child everything then that tends to destroy their motivation to study, work and achieve as they have no incentive to do this hard work. These are generalisations and opinions but based upon my observations this is the way matters tend to proceed.

    Reply
  327. Not Mary Torres -  February 18, 2012 - 4:02 pm

    Hey Mary Torres, that’s not how you spell beautiful!

    Reply
  328. Hannah -  February 18, 2012 - 3:56 pm

    I like how ‘mary torres’ spelled beautiful “buttiful” in a dictionary.com comment.

    Reply
  329. Spelling please xD -  February 18, 2012 - 3:47 pm

    Anyone notice that although this article is on a site whose main purpose is to correct spelling and phrasing, the second and third comments have both terrible spelling AND grammar? Not to mention punctuation…

    Reply
  330. Jesse Wright -  February 18, 2012 - 3:44 pm

    If the trademarking of a name only means the name can’t be used commercially, then the idea makes sense. After all, being two world-famous celebrities, Jay-Z and Beryonce’s baby’s name would probably end up on some make-up product, which is probably what they were hoping to avoid. I’d say anyone has the right to name their child whatever they’d like to, but companies should be limited in their ability to name themselves or their products after other people’s children.

    Reply
  331. Donna -  February 18, 2012 - 3:41 pm

    It’s valid for the parents to trademark the name and I doubt that they are the only people in the world have trademarked a name. And it’s a pretty name for baby products so they have thought it out. It’s just business as usual :-)

    Reply
  332. Ana -  February 18, 2012 - 3:33 pm

    thats such a stupid name for a kid. it sounds like something out from slavery time.

    Reply
  333. DJSHUAIB -  February 18, 2012 - 3:31 pm

    I CANT BELIEVE THEIR CHILD IS YOUNGEST LIVING ILLUMINATI ON PLANET EARTH

    Reply
  334. rocky-o -  February 18, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    very interesting article…and yes, i think it was right of them to trademark their baby’s name…
    after all, there would be somebody out there who would want to quickly create a line of baby products named after the kid, just because people would stupid enough to buy it for that reason alone…

    Reply
  335. Juju -  February 18, 2012 - 3:22 pm

    I think the name Blue Ivy Carter is weird, no offense intended to Beyonce and Jay-Z. Also, WHY would you trademark your child’s name? Isn’t that a bit over the top?

    Reply
  336. Coil -  February 18, 2012 - 3:18 pm

    It’s fascinating that humans are obsessed with a famous person who received a collection of sperm inside her genitalia, produced a human, and had it extracted from her vagina. People need to focus on other things instead of celebrity worship.

    Reply
  337. abdullah -  February 18, 2012 - 3:15 pm

    coooooool

    Reply
  338. devon -  February 18, 2012 - 3:10 pm

    Jay-z is a beast

    Reply
  339. Ali -  February 18, 2012 - 2:57 pm

    I LUB BLUE IVY

    Reply
  340. Eric -  February 18, 2012 - 2:52 pm

    It is rather ironic that all the people commenting on a, “dictionary.com,” article are incapable of spelling or speaking English properly.

    As for my response to this article:

    Jay-Z and Beyonce are self-entitled narcissists that think too highly of themselves and their pseudo-creativity.

    Women in labor had to be moved because they decided to “rent” an entire floor of the hospital in which their child was born and rather than have any empathy, they relished the scenario.

    Reply
  341. faith -  February 18, 2012 - 2:51 pm

    Good day from faith. can I name my boutique
    ” blue lvy” ?beyonce I lv u ,I like everything about u ,ur albums ,videos any thing that has to do wi u and music .I so so much in need of ur pix.

    Reply
  342. lala gibson -  February 18, 2012 - 2:49 pm

    that a good thing theyy did that because everyyone is going to want that name

    Reply
  343. bailey -  February 18, 2012 - 2:44 pm

    I love tht name =)

    Reply
  344. j -  February 18, 2012 - 2:18 pm

    and this is why money is wasted and could be used for better ideas like giving to the poor.

    Reply
  345. Luke -  February 18, 2012 - 2:08 pm

    Irony abounds when people cannot spell correctly while writing comments on a dictionary website.

    Reply
  346. Michael -  February 18, 2012 - 2:02 pm

    Isn’t it nice to see their already preparing to make money from their baby? Trademarking her name for baby products…how charming.

    Reply
  347. lozb -  February 18, 2012 - 1:55 pm

    Hm interesting. Iagree, a beautiful name! By the way you’re 3rd not 1st :)

    Reply
  348. Anonymous -  February 18, 2012 - 1:53 pm

    I think it’s ironic that the comments on an article featured on dictionary.com have horrible spelling.

    Reply
  349. alicia j -  February 18, 2012 - 1:48 pm

    thats kinda funny to trademark a name but kinda cool too. pretty name

    Reply
  350. illuminatiaftermyass -  February 18, 2012 - 1:48 pm

    im sorry, but i dont like it. to each his own though. they have that money, they can do whatever they want. its not like she will ever have to put that name on an application. hate to say it, but it sounds ghetto, and naming a child after your album….. cmon now…. i must be the only one in the world that thinks that using your child to promote your album is ludicrous.

    Reply
  351. me8 -  February 18, 2012 - 1:46 pm

    I think the name is kinda dumb (I prefer more traditional names), but the parents can do what they want. It’s their baby. On the other hand, it is unique.

    Also, I think it’s a little weird that they copyrighted her name, but it does somewhat make sense after the reading the article’s explanation.

    Reply
  352. Elaine Arnold -  February 18, 2012 - 1:42 pm

    Personally I think it’s ridiculous. Who in the world wants to call a child Blue? I know a horse named Blue and dogs named Blue…. I rest my case.

    Reply
  353. vonrhode -  February 18, 2012 - 1:38 pm

    I think it’s pretentious.

    Reply
  354. KEVIN K. -  February 18, 2012 - 1:35 pm

    At first hearing, trademarking a baby name sounds ridiculous and as though you are commodifying your child, but I see that the purpose here is the very opposite, and entirely apropos: they’re protecting their child from being commodified and capitalized upon by others.

    Reply
  355. Tallie -  February 18, 2012 - 1:31 pm

    I don’t think they need to copyright their child’s name to be honest, no self-respecting parent would wish to copy it anyway.

    Reply
  356. sprode -  February 18, 2012 - 1:25 pm

    Jay-Z and Beyonce are the worst sort of people… in fact only Republicans can outdo them in pretension, avarice, and arrogance.

    Reply
  357. MFG -  February 18, 2012 - 1:22 pm

    The trademark rules are decent and acceptable. I think Jay Z and Beyonce made an intelligent pursuit for a trademark on their child’s name. Since this couple is famous, companies would be willing to market to the public by naming a product of theirs, “Blue Ivy Carter” to gain higher marketability, thus increasing profits. If I were famous, I’d trademark my child’s name too. I wouldn’t want other people reaping the benefits of my child’s inherited fame, either!

    Reply
  358. JJRousseau -  February 18, 2012 - 1:22 pm

    Product, Procreation, Progeny, Pachyderm, DNA, or Brand? Ruff is a Word, Oui?

    Reply
  359. Me -  February 18, 2012 - 1:20 pm

    Jay Z and Beyonce are rediculous. As are you miss mary torres. The website is called Dictionary.com, why don’t you look up how to spell BEAUTIFUL, not buttiful.

    Reply
  360. Noa -  February 18, 2012 - 1:13 pm

    adorable baby

    Reply
  361. Intrigued Observer -  February 18, 2012 - 1:12 pm

    I am surprised by commenters’ lack of grammatical competence on this site. I suppose they’re on Dictionary.com in order to learn!

    Reply
  362. Lexii -  February 18, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    if yall really look at the babys name it is Blue IV Carter… IV means 4 in roman numerals and Carter is Dawayne Carter (Lil’ Wayne) Just like one of his albums,Tha Carter IV :)

    Reply
  363. sfsd -  February 18, 2012 - 12:42 pm

    this is so stupid i hate both of them. why would you trademark a name? they are selfish and think that they are all that because they are famous. They closed down an entire floor of a hospital because of her baby. they need to get it through that there could of been lives at stake while her baby was being born. stupid

    Reply
  364. Lace -  February 18, 2012 - 12:24 pm

    That’s going too far. What’s the point of trademarking a name?

    Reply
  365. Lydia -  February 18, 2012 - 12:23 pm

    Fail… ^^^^^^^ ^_^

    I dislike the name… It sounds like a really bad species of poisonous ivy.

    Reply
  366. z -  February 18, 2012 - 12:11 pm

    odd

    Reply
  367. Carbonated Chocolate Cake -  February 18, 2012 - 12:10 pm

    all i can think of is: why? But they have the money, so….whatever. I think Blue Ivy Carter isn’t the best name to give, but it’s their baby, so whatever….

    Reply
  368. SL -  February 18, 2012 - 12:08 pm

    Interesting read. Are Jay-Z and Beyoncé trademarking a name, or are they merely creating and trademarking a brand which uses the name of their baby? Trademark law is frequently overreaching and counter-intuitive but I don’t believe this case is among the worst of offenders.

    Reply
  369. roy jones jr -  February 18, 2012 - 12:06 pm

    Well I guess Ivy Carter is what folks will be calling her later in life. middle school will be fun for her getting mocked at with first name “Blue”.

    Reply
  370. rachel -  February 18, 2012 - 12:05 pm

    I think they’re either being grossly arrogant or really ignorant. Probably both. I highly doubt they understand what a trademark is. Even if they do, it doesn’t make sense to trademark it. Do they really think their infant is so popular that companies are going to start using her name to sell products? Then again, their target audience is probably just as dumb and easily exploitable.

    Reply
  371. Cynthia -  February 18, 2012 - 11:45 am

    Wait, so the kid is only two weeks old and the parents are trademarking her name so they can start a line of baby products???!!!! Gross.

    Reply
  372. shanda -  February 18, 2012 - 11:41 am

    They have such a beautiful baby.

    Reply
  373. Wow -  February 18, 2012 - 11:09 am

    I am confused if two other couples tried to trademark the name how come they didnt get it but Jay Z and Beyonce did? This right here show tha money does buy everything….I do agree that is a cute baby and a cute baby name but wow

    Reply
  374. Janet -  February 18, 2012 - 11:04 am

    Trademarking their daughter’s name was unnecessary and therefore ridiculous. It did get them more press, so that is a plus for the attention whores.

    Reply
  375. Avril -  February 18, 2012 - 10:59 am

    I. Don’t. Understand. What about the baby? She has to live her life with the name ‘Blue Ivy’. If they weren’t rich, someone would think they were hippies.

    Reply
  376. Glenda -  February 18, 2012 - 10:54 am

    That’s what $$$$$$$$$ can do. I have no problem with it, but I think that we in America are losing it just a little and going after things that really don’t matter. There is toooooooo much emphasis on being a celebrity. it may seem fine now, but just wait and see what the child has to go through with being a celebrity before she can even breathe good.

    Reply
  377. Mandy Adamson -  February 18, 2012 - 10:52 am

    This article makes the fair use doctrine seem less complicated when the truth is that proving fair use within a court is a very difficult matter because so many factors are involved.

    Reply
  378. Akilah -  February 18, 2012 - 10:50 am

    If someone else has already tried, multiple times, you might as well go ahead and make it officially your own trademark.

    Reply
  379. jailson -  February 18, 2012 - 10:48 am

    hey Jay-z and Beyonce I know a perfect name for your baby Neceay
    thats the name necay

    Reply
  380. Tobias Mook -  February 18, 2012 - 10:46 am

    Why do people make such a big deal about celebrity life? It doesn’t make any sense to me…

    Reply
  381. Attention Deficit... Oh Look, Shiny! -  February 18, 2012 - 10:43 am

    If it’s a baby, it’s pretty much automatically cute.

    Reply
  382. HEATHER MAY -  February 18, 2012 - 10:40 am

    I FEEL THAT THE TRADE MARKING RULES SEEM REASONABLE AND NEEDED. WITHOUT THEM THINGS COULD GET VERY CONFUSING WHEN IT COMES TO BUISNESSES AND BRANDS. WE COULD HAVE OVER 100 DIFFERENT PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE SAME NAME OF BRAND AND THATS 100 DIFFERENT COMPANY POLICES,AND JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THINGS. THEN IF SOMEONE HAD A LAWSUIT AGAINST ONE COMPANY THAT SHARED ITS NAME WITH 99 OTHER COMPANIES IT COULD GET PRETTY CONFUSING….

    Reply
  383. piscesean -  February 18, 2012 - 10:30 am

    Hey Mary… you’re at dictionary.com… USE IT.

    Reply
  384. Vicaari -  February 18, 2012 - 10:30 am

    Interesting!!!

    Reply
  385. mary torres -  February 18, 2012 - 10:29 am

    i love that song U PUT MA LOVE ON TOP :)

    Reply
  386. Erin -  February 18, 2012 - 10:22 am

    I don’t like the name, and I don’t know why anyone would want to use it, much less trademark it. It must be nice to have too much time on one’s hands.

    Reply
  387. Vanessa -  February 18, 2012 - 10:17 am

    Cool name, but…why must we be so obsessed with possession that we even trademark our children’s names?

    Reply
  388. Who cares -  February 18, 2012 - 10:15 am

    This couple planned a head and will increase their worth because they have excellent business sense. I cannot wait to see the “Blue Ivy Carter” line. Kudos to them…they are truly a power couple!

    Reply
  389. JoJo -  February 18, 2012 - 10:07 am

    who knew u could trademark a name? :)

    Reply
  390. Bree -  February 18, 2012 - 10:03 am

    Let me get this straight… you can only trademark a name if its celebrity? If so thats BS… If those other parents wanted to trademarke the name due to the same intentions B and J have, they should have been alowed to and should be furious… I hate the bullcrap treatment celebs get just because everyone knows their name. Big whoop.

    Reply
  391. BLUEIVYCARTER | BLOGCHI@mayopia.com -  February 18, 2012 - 9:51 am

    [...] “Blue Ivy Carter” — expressly used for barter. — The right of every parent to capitalize on the child. — Such love and Grace upon her. — Money Money is Life Gone Wild — Who is Zooming who? we do refer. — Whether Fair or not it’s still some form of use. — The question is what is critique to speak? — and is not ‘Mammonism’ of some Parent Company — or otherwise child abuse. –>>L.T.Rhyme [...]

    Reply
  392. Mackenzie -  February 18, 2012 - 9:39 am

    cool!!! the name is really pretty! immma da 4th comment

    Reply
  393. rocker212 -  February 18, 2012 - 9:29 am

    common its stupid

    Reply
  394. mary torres -  February 18, 2012 - 9:22 am

    @JOAN what?

    Reply
  395. Bob jack -  February 18, 2012 - 9:20 am

    I. Think u can’t name a baby hahahahahahahHahaha I like the name bob for all babies

    Reply
  396. Zachary Luttner -  February 18, 2012 - 9:18 am

    Reasonable, and relevant don’t seem like the most apt words… ridiculous, and unnecessary seem like more accurate adjectives underlying this article.

    Reply
  397. jessika a.j -  February 18, 2012 - 9:17 am

    dat iz a pretty baby …sum folks need 2 stop haten beyonce and jay-z

    Reply
  398. Karlee Farf -  February 18, 2012 - 9:06 am

    3>

    Reply
  399. Karlee Farf -  February 18, 2012 - 9:05 am

    Blue Icy is such a beautiful name. It flows very nicely. LOVE IT! <3

    Reply
  400. Karlee Farf -  February 18, 2012 - 9:04 am

    Blue Ivy is such a beautiful (don’t hate on me Kay) name. It flows very nicely.

    Reply
  401. Kay -  February 18, 2012 - 9:02 am

    Mary Torres why cant you just spell out b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l? You just said buttiful. REALLY? BUTTIFUL?

    What has the world come to?

    Anyway, love that name, so pretty, Blue Ivy.

    Reply
  402. Ava -  February 18, 2012 - 8:51 am

    I think people are making a big deal about this baby. This couple did nothing that a million people do every year…they had a baby! Who cares…I had 2 of them! Because people are such celebrity whores I can understand the (unfortunate) necessity to trademark their babies name!

    I think its ridiculous the amount of attention this and other celebrity parented children get and not the fact that, right here in this country, babies are starving, children are homeless…instead the news informs us that they bought their baby a lucite crib…WHO CARES! I bought mine beautiful canopied cribs! So their baby got a chest full of books, I have a library in my home! Again, WHO CARES!

    Folks, get with the program, this celebrity blitz is all done simply to divert your attention from the problems at hand…Gas prices, unemployment, taxes, foreclosures, the economy…WAKE UP!

    Worry about your own and not celebrities or their babies! Their parents have more than enough money to take care of their kids and trust me, they don’t care about your kids!

    Reply
  403. .. -  February 18, 2012 - 8:48 am

    I think it would be funny if she grew up, hated her name, and had it legally changed.

    Reply
  404. Hannah -  February 18, 2012 - 8:46 am

    Its just as sad that others may try to make money off these ppl and their baby’s name esp. after bashing and name-calling them. we should all just chill! Go live by the sea or summn.

    Reply
  405. Sly -  February 18, 2012 - 8:45 am

    They probably trademarked it because they’re planning on having, say for example, a child or baby clothing line – For that intent, I totally agree with what they’ve done…Its protecting a name that will be used for a business endeavor at a later date…

    Trademarking it just for the fun of it – that would be ridiculous…

    IMHO, I think they did it for business purposes… Only time will tell ;)

    Reply
  406. Hannah -  February 18, 2012 - 8:36 am

    I think the world is getting more ridiculous each day. No one truly owns anything, we all die and leave it all behind. To go around excersising pretense that a name or word belongs to us is redundant. This is only done for the sake of riches or an overblown ego. Thats my say.

    Reply
  407. Joan -  February 18, 2012 - 8:26 am

    Hey.. 1st comment.. :)

    Reply
  408. Yusuf abdulwasiu -  February 18, 2012 - 7:34 am

    Jay Z nd Beyonce are making life 4 their child.Yes,life is beautiful when money dey.

    Reply
  409. mary torres -  February 18, 2012 - 7:09 am

    i think that that is a buttiful name and a lovable baby :)

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top