Do you think that people's names should be able to be trademarked, like Jay Z and Beyonce's baby's name, for example, so that nobody could name their baby the same name?

I think it’s incredibly dumb. People can be original by being original, not by having trademarked names.

No. No one has the corner on names. I agree with @DeanV. I wouldn’t want to name my child Blue Ivy.

No. Next they’ll want to add a Tag Line or a logo to their kids name to be “different”.

Blue Ivy isn’t such a bad name, but I guess all names are relative….

Anyway, definitely NO. People can name their children any which way they want, even if it’s already the name of a celebrities baby, and even if the name sounds “odd” or “strange”.

It’s no one’s choice but the parents :)

What a bizarre thing to do! If they genuinely think this is a good baby name, why should they deny it to everyone else? If they are trying to save a future generation from ridicule, perhaps they should seriously rethink the name.

No. I just don’t even….

I really hope that, instead of spending all this money on lawsuits enforcing the trademark, they just put it in a fund for all the years of therapy Blue Ivy is going to need.

I think it’s ridiculous. Actually, I think a LOT of things celebrities do are ridiculous.

Just another type of PC insanity, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t see how that could fly, seems like they’re kinda infringing on everyone else’s right of free speech as far as naming their own kid whatever they want.

As it is, I always thought beyonce was a stupid name. Blue Ivy is equally silly. It just makes you think of a sad child who (like Ivy) will spread its darkness everywhere.
But to answer your question. Its silly to try to trademark a name. What are they going to do if the kid grows up hating the name and changes it to Saw Dust. Going to trademark that too.
It seems no matter how rich you get, you can still be stupid about naming your kid.
What if there are people already named blue ivy. Are they going to have to pay for the name, or change it? There may even be a business named blue ivy. I know people who have the last name blue, so it wouldn’t be uncommon for someone to have named a girl Ivy Blue.

Ridiculous. I can’t see this actually being approved. @CaptainHarley How is this related to being PC, though?

Given the number of babies born every day, I don’t think it’s practical. Sounds very narcissistic and shouldn’t be catered to as an idea. Look at any phone book and there are duplicates of names. How many Mary Smiths would you guess there are in the world? Or Bill Jones? And that’s just a couple of English type names.

No. But then again, the names themselves should be enough to discourage anyone from inflicting these on their children.

Odd. Not surprising though. Feels rather conceited. They must think lots of people will be hanging out to call their children Blue Ivy? Look how many people jumped on the bandwagon and called their children Apple and Moon Unit. You can never be too careful.

This is the height of egotism and narcissism. “Oh, no one can have our daughters name, it’s too cool and unique for you commoners!”

This is what happens when people have too much money.

Only if the trademark ™ symbol appears next to the name at every single instance, from birth certificate onward: on greeting cards and gift tags, school registrations, name tags, diplomas, employee badges, and of course in all data files and electronic records. In fact, I think they ought to have to include it in the pronunciation.

No.

@Aethelflaed FYI they didn’t accept offers to sell photos of their baby.

Of course not. What nonsense.

It seems like everyone here needs to be educated on what a trademark actually means.
Unless there is an emerging market of legal baby trade that every child is forced to enter, this will have no effect on name exclusivity.

Incredibly stupid idea, and totally impossible to enforce.

Would every new parent have to do a trademark search right after birth in order to be sure that their name is clear? Of course not, that’s silly. And what about outside the US? Do you think that people in the UK or Australia will be constrained from naming their children Blue Ivy? of course not.

How many “Jennifer Marie <lastname>” do you know? I can think of 4 in my own circle of friends and family.

But then, we’re talking about so-called celebrities here, who have BIG egos and no sense at all.

If anyone is wondering, the application will probably be denied. To get a name trademarked, it has to be more than just unique. It has to be related to trade (indeed, it has to be a mark that you use for trade purposes). Moreover, trademarking a name does not actually prevent other people from naming their children something. It prevents people from using the name for trade purposes. And even this is limited: Michael Jackson couldn’t have stopped someone else named Michael Jackson from naming his restaurant “Michael Jackson’s Restaurant.” He could have stopped him from calling it “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch,” though, or from advertising with phrases like “Become a moonwalker! Eat at Michael Jackson’s out of this world restaurant on 35th street!” because those obviously trade on an association with the musician rather than the humble restauranteur.

No. How far up their own arses can these people be?! It’s not like they invented these two names/words so they should have no rights to them at all. If they succeed to trademark the name it only opens the floodgates for other people to do the same and will get out of hand. Bloody ridiculous. They need to get over themselves and stop thinking that the vast majority of people on this planet care about their kids name.