Previous post
Beyoncé and Jay-Z, as we know, have very inflated opinions of themselves. Of course, they would. They were regulars at Barack and Michelle’s parties.
Apparently, they have overly-inflated opinions of their children as well. This is not just a simple fondness most parents have of their children. No, this is delusion to the point of calling one of them a “cultural icon“.
Here’s where the story begins. A wedding planner by the name of Wendy Morales has a company called “Blue Ivy Events”. Beyoncé wants to trademark her daughter’s name, “Blue Ivy Carter”. Of course, queen Beyonce feels she should have the trademark rights because…
Fast forward to about six minutes in if you don’t want to hear the tripe:
Yes, she’s Beyoncé. And ergo, her daughter, Blue Ivy Carter is a cultural icon.
At seven years old. But that ain’t stopping Bey.
“[Morales claims] that consumers are likely to be confused between a boutique wedding event planning business and Blue Ivy Carter, the daughter of two of the most famous performers in the world, is frivolous and should be refused in its entirety,” Beyoncé’s legal teams claims before specifying that the claim is for “Blue Ivy Carter” and not just “Blue Ivy.” “[T]he presence of the word ‘CARTER’ ties the commercial impression of BGK’s Mark to the celebrity Blue Ivy Carter rather than Opposer’s regional event planning business.”
–Complex
Beyoncé threw some shade back the the wedding planner’s business stating that the business itself is a “small business, with just three regional offices and a handful of employees, with weak online presence and poorly subscribed social media accounts”.
Morales started her business in 2009. Blue Ivy Carter was born in 2012. As ridiculous as the argument for this trademark is, is there anyone out there like yours truly who thinks it’s even more ludicrous to late your child who doesn’t yet know a thing about culture yet a “cultural icon”? Not outlandish in the vain world of Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Their spawn is a cultural icon, y’all. Must throw mad respect at this child while trying to undermine a small business. Yep, Beyoncé. Way to stand up in “formation” for the little guy!
This uncovers so much more than a trademark dispute. This unveils the dysfunction that plagues some modern-day parents and the vanity that surrounds some of our children today. Social media followers. Online presence. The clothes they wear, the shoes on their feet. All of this now brings them meaning and validity. Not acts of service, not learning how to speak to adults before they open their mouths. Not respecting any one else and their opinions. Their world is solely focused around them. They are cultural icons, after all. I can see it now…”Honey, what did mom get your for Christmas?” Child: “My mommy got me my own trademark because I’m a cultural icon!”
Seriously, these people make my face hurt.
Blue Ivy Carter has not only been put on a pedestal by her mother and father, she is being marketed as a commodity. These individuals are so fame-hungry and self-centered that they willingly thrust their children into the spotlight and into the screwed-up world that is the entertainment industry. Way to treat your child like a piece of merchandise, Queen Bey. She wants to trademark her kid! Yet, entertainment rags will continue to support this behavior. Freelance writers in their flats in Brooklyn will defend it. In fact, they will encourage this because, yes, she is Beyoncé.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Photo Credit: FlickR/CreativeCommons/Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)/Cropped
Scott says: “They were regulars at Barack and Michelle’s parties.”.. That right there tells you all you need to know.
Kim says: Wendy Morales – a latina?
shame on bouncey
GWB says: Sorry, but there’s no known commercial value to the name for the kid. Despite her mother’s claim of “cultural icon”, there’s no benefit to the market (of any sort) to be gained by trademarking the name. ESPECIALLY since there’s already a business using that name.
Sorry, Beyonce, but you’re going to have to come up with a more persuasive argument than “I’m a queen, and that makes her a princess!”
Now, please go away and leave us normals be.
Mike-in-Keller says: Um, no. She’s a little girl. It would be nice if her mother would let her be a little girl, but I don’t expect her to have that much kindness.
GWB says: Good thing she’ll be rich, ’cause that many years of therapy will be expensive.
DesertFlower says: Similar behavior from the Obamas, whose lawyers are going after an e-book publishing company called Higher Ground Enterprises because the name is similar to the Obamas’ new Higher Ground Productions, through which they plan to produce films, etc. Through their spokespeople, the Obamas have suggested that this little, insignificant publishing company (which had the name “Higher Ground” before they did) should get out of their way because they are, after all, The Ones. Sickening sense of entitlement.
Brio says: Sounds like the trademark dispute that other famous black couple (the Obamas) is having about using the words “higher ground” as a company name. An existing company had the nerve to use the name first.
Jsn2 says: Beeonsay is a typical arrogant and ignorant leftist.
Jsn2 says: Beeonsay is a typical arrogant and ignorant leftist.
Sam L. says: ” As ridiculous as the argument for this trademark is, is there anyone out there like yours truly who thinks it’s even more ludicrous to ***** late***** your child who doesn’t yet know a thing about culture yet a “cultural icon”?
Huh? Call for rewrite!
10 Comments