Looking at this past week’s tabloid fallout between Brooklyn Beckham and his famous parents, one of his claims for the animosity was that, ahead of his wedding, his parents ‘repeatedly pressured and attempted to bribe me into signing away the rights to my name’.
It’s not an issue most families find themselves in, but when your surname is your brand and livelihood, balancing protection of it alongside maintaining cordial familial relations can prove to be difficult.
According to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Brooklyn, and his three siblings, Romeo, Cruz and Harper Beckham, all had their birth names registered with them by their mother in 2017, with the trade mark covering a wide range of categories, including cosmetics, books, clothing and toys. Meaning should they want to use their names on those products, they need to go through their mom first, as she owns the rights.
This is not unusual with celebrity children, often as a pre-emptive move to stop anyone else trying to do so. Kim Kardashian has had active trademarks in place for her eldest child with Kanye West, North West, and most likely her other children as well.
‘Brand Beckham’ has been built up over 3 decades, from pop star and professional footballer origins, to fashion brand moguls and MLS franchise owners. As well as a slew of brand partnerships covering multiple categories; high fashion with Emporio Armani and then BOSS, cars with Maserati, watches with Tudor and most recently a range of SharkNinja products homeware products, the Beckham brand has also been on licensed clothing (H&M), aftershave and beauty (L’Oreal and Coty) and eyewear (Safilo).
With a net worth of over $670m its a brand most definitely worth protecting and recent self-exec produced Netflix documentaries on both David and Victoria have helped control the brand image and smooth over past scandals such as reported infidelities, sport-washing deals and bad business management.
It is perhaps unsurprising then that with relations with their eldest child deteriorating they tried to maintain control of the Beckham name by trying to gain, or maintain, legal ownership of ‘Brooklyn Beckham’ to stop the potential launch of products that they feel could rival or damage the ‘brand’.
When your family name is also your brand, business and family relationships can get very muddled. Another good example being the other British wayward son - Prince Harry, when objections were raised to him using ‘Sussex Royal’ commercially for products and partnerships. Despite being both a member of the British royal family and the Duke of Sussex.
It is possible though to successfully create family sub-brands, distinct from the master brand that can compliment rather than detract. One example is Paris Hilton, the great-grand-daughter of the Hilton hotel founder. Paris Hilton became a personal brand around pop culture, nightlife, and fashion, outside the corporate constraints of the Hilton brand. The Hilton hotel chain brand feels very distinct from the huge range of licensed products that have been launched using Paris Hilton’s name - from a massive fragrance empire with Parlux, skincare with Parívie, apparel and accessories with both IHL Group and Claire's, and even wellness drinks with Vitapod. By creating a very distinct brand image and in separate categories, the Paris Hilton brand sits distinctly apart from the Hilton hotel name.
Likewise Stella McCartney was able to create a brand distinct from both her father’s iconic music career and her mother’s vegan and vegetarian food label, creating a fashion brand focused on sustainability and cruelty-free practices.
With Brooklyn Beckham seemingly keen to regain legal control of his name for commercial purposes, it will be interesting to see if, and how, he looks to exploit his part of ‘Brand Beckham’ in the future. He has the opportunity to define who he is, rather than what has been pre-ordained by others.
His forays into photography and cooking open up potential avenues for authentic brand extensions. And, if familial relations stay as they are, not only will it be easier to make his brand distinct from that of the rest of the family but will also likely generate a lot of interest.
And so far there doesn’t seem to be any negative effect on Brand Beckham, if anything the interest has created a campaign to drive streams and sales of Victoria Beckham’s solo single, ‘Not Such an Innocent Girl’. Victoria is the only Spice Girl not to ever have their own #1 UK single so perhaps the old adage, there’s no such thing as bad publicity could in this case be true.