Thank you for the music: Celebrating the music industry's trademark triumphs for World IP Day 2025

Thank you for the music: Celebrating the music industry’s trademark triumphs for World IP Day 2025

World IP Day gives us the opportunity to recognize the importance of intellectual property (IP) in fostering creativity and innovation. This year’s theme, ‘IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP,’ focuses on the significant role IP rights play in the music industry.

In 2024, the global music industry generated a staggering $21.6 billion in revenue ^[1], underscoring the critical need for artists to protect their IP. This World IP Day, we delve into how iconic bands and artists are defending their trademarks and winning their battles.

Using our Darts-ip and CompuMark databases, we’ve extracted trademark litigation and opposition data from around the world. This data reveals the prevalence of trademark disputes in the music industry and underscores the importance of diligent trademark protection.

These legal battles and the judgments that result walk the line between safeguarding existing talent and fostering new innovation.

The winner takes it all: ABBA at the EUIPO

Since 2024, a number of notable cases have been opposed and litigated at the EUIPO, two of which involve the ABBA trademark.

On February 4, 2025, the EUIPO Opposition Division upheld an opposition filed by Polar Music (the holders of ABBA’s intellectual property rights) to a trademark application for ‘Viña ABBA’ for alcoholic beverages. The opposition was based on the word mark ‘ABBA,’ which is widely recognized due to the Swedish pop group’s long-standing reputation.

Despite the dissimilarity of the goods (alcoholic beverages vs. musical recordings), the examiner concluded that the contested trademark could unfairly benefit from ABBA’s positive image. Consequently, the trademark application was rejected.

Just one year earlier, on February 8, 2024, ABBA Nutrition tried to register their trademark at the EUIPO, but it was found that the goods and services in question to be identical or similar to those covered by the Swedish pop group’s earlier mark. The examiner found a likelihood of confusion and partially upheld the opposition, rejecting the contested mark for the goods and services deemed similar.

Michael Jackson in Switzerland and Chile

Regional nuances and the importance of understanding them came into focus in Switzerland and Chile concerning disputes over Michael Jackson’s trademarks. While one trademark application was rejected on grounds of conceptual similarity, the other was granted due to phonetic dissimilarity.

In Switzerland an opposition was filed by the entity that manages Michael Jackson’s intellectual property (Triumph International) against an application for a device trademark resembling Michael Jackson’s famous dance pose from the ‘Black or White’ music video. The basis for the opposition was an earlier trademark registration for the words MICHAEL JACKSON.

On May 28, 2024, the Swiss IPO (IGE) found conceptual similarity between the marks and concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. Even though the opposition relied on a word mark the conceptual similarity between the words and the image in the opposed application was considered high enough to act as a bar and the trademark application was rejected, showcasing the significance of conceptual similarity in trademark disputes.

Unlike the ABBA case, focusing on visual and aural similarities, the Michael Jackson case demonstrates how a well-known image or pose can influence the decision, even when the trademarks are not visually identical.

In Chile, an opposition was filed against an application for ‘Maikel Perez Jackson,’ by Triumph International arguing likelihood of confusion and unfair competition with their registered mark ‘Michael Jackson’.

Despite the phonetic similarity between ‘Maikel’ and ‘Michael,’ the presence of ‘Perez’ was deemed sufficient to rule out confusion. The opposition was dismissed by the INAPI on November 28, 2023, and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal de Propiedad Industrial on February 26, 2024.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal on April 22, 2024. Contrasting with the case in Switzerland, the case in Chile shows how regional differences in interpretation of trademark law can lead to different decisions.

Want to learn more about regional nuances in trademark similarity assessments? Download our report today.

Rock and Roll in the United States

Over the past 20 years, the number of IP cases filed in United States courts has increased dramatically. ^[2]So, it’s no surprise that the courts take an aggressive stance against counterfeiters, often offering substantial statutory damages at trial.

Iconic bands like Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden and Metallica have all triumphed in their battles against counterfeiters in recent years.

Pink Floyd (1987) Limited took decisive action against online counterfeiters peddling unauthorized Pink Floyd merchandise. On April 24, 2024, the Illinois Northern District Court granted a default judgment, awarding Pink Floyd a substantial $250,000 in statutory damages for willful trademark infringement.

Similarly, Iron Maiden Holdings Limited confronted e-commerce operators selling counterfeit Iron Maiden products. The court’s ruling on September 12, 2024, awarded Iron Maiden $50,000 in statutory damages for willful trademark infringement.

Metallica also pursued legal action against counterfeiters selling unauthorized Metallica merchandise. On June 27, 2024, the court awarded Metallica $100,000 in statutory damages for willful trademark infringement.

These victories are the result of the relentless efforts of these renowned bands to protect their brand integrity and ensure that their loyal fans receive authentic merchandise.

Slaughter and The Dogs in the United Kingdom

In the world of music, band names often become iconic symbols of their legacy. But what happens when the rights to that name come into question? In the United Kingdom, a battle of ex-band mates was concluded in May 2024.

In this intriguing trademark dispute, Wayne Barrett McGrath sought to secure exclusive rights to the band’s name, ‘Slaughter and The Dogs,’ under class 9 for music-related goods. However, Howard Bates and Mick Rossi, fellow original band members, contested this move on the grounds of passing off. They argued that the band’s name had been in use since 1975 and had built substantial goodwill, which should be shared equally among all original members.

In this case, the hearing officer acknowledged that the band had indeed created goodwill under the name ‘Slaughter and the Dogs.’ The key issue was determining who owned this goodwill. The decision was that the goodwill generated by the band up to 1980 was owned by the surviving members from that period: Howard Bates, Mick Rossi, Ed Garrity and Philip Rowland. The court found that goodwill, misrepresentation and damage were proven, leading to Bates’ success in his invalidation claim.

There are many complexities to trademark ownership within bands, especially when multiple members have contributed to the brand’s reputation over the years, but there is a great deal of importance at the UKIPO of recognizing collective goodwill and ensuring fair distribution of trademark rights among all contributors.

World Intellectual Property Day 2025

World Intellectual Property Day 2025 serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role that trademarks play in the music industry.

The cases highlighted, from ABBA’s victories at the EUIPO to the Michael Jackson trademark disputes in Switzerland and Chile and the aggressive stance against counterfeiters in the United States, all underscore the importance of diligent trademark protection.

Take the first step in protecting your trademark rights against infringement with CompuMark Watch. Learn how our best-in-class Worldwide Watch can help safeguard your valuable brands.