Source: El país.

The legal battle for the trademark related to the painter Frida Kahlo began in 2015 between the heirs of the famous artist and a company of Panamanian origin called Frida Kahlo Corporations, a battle that is still in force and that has been unresolved for almost a decade.

When Kahlo died in 1954, several of her intellectual property rights passed to her niece, Isolda Pinedo Kahlo. In 2003, Pinedo Kahlo’s daughter, María Cristina Romeo Pinedo, and Mara de Anda obtained a notarized power over such property rights.

Later, in 2005, the Frida Kahlo Corporation (FKC) was formed to market the Frida Kahlo brand, made up of several shareholders with rights to the works of the Mexican artist, including Romero Pinedo. According to its website, the FKC owns the trademark rights and interests in the name Frida Kahlo worldwide and has licensed the artist’s image for various products. Therefore, the licensing, authorization, development, commercialization, and protection of products or services related to Kahlo are exclusively owned by said company.

However, in March 2018, after the family of the Mexican painter found out through social media about the launch of a Barbie doll in tribute to the artist, they tried to contact the company Mattel to clarify the situation since they assured that the FKC hadn’t have permission to reproduce his image.

On the other hand, Beatriz Alvarado, a member of FKC, assured that in 2005, Isolda Pinedo Kahlo gave them the rights to the painter’s image, which made them the owners of the name, concept, ideology, and distinctive signs of Frida.

For this reason, the businesswoman emphasized that Mara Romeo did not have the provision to grant or authorize licenses despite being a member of the Frida Kahlo Corporation, for which the company Mattel had the authorization to use the image of the artist, except for Mexico where precautionary measures were imposed to stop the sale of this toy.

In addition, FKC accused Kahlo’s niece of trademark infringement, alleging that she even created a competing website (www.fkahlo.com) that expressly offered goods and services using the Frida Kahlo brand, a brand that is identical to their trademarks. They also alleged defamation, claiming that Romero’s public statements about the Kahlo brand had caused them to lose at least one licensing opportunity.

 

In addition, the company argued that it had invested an enormous amount of time and economic resources to position the “Frida Kahlo” brand and achieve the great recognition, prestige, and notoriety that it has today throughout the world, especially in Mexico.

 

In this context, the lawyers of the artist’s family indicate that the contract between FKC and the artist’s relatives only provides for the use of the trademark concerning four categories of products: jewelry, whitening, polishing, and degreasing preparations, paper, cardboard and printing products, and alcoholic beverages.

These brands can be expanded under the control and acceptance of the family, but the Panamanian company requested brands that the family had not authorize, which constituted an entirely illegal use.

Due to the above, Kahlo’s family began a legal process to recover 100% of the management of the brand, but they have not yet been successful.

It is worth clarifying that what is in dispute is the Frida Kahlo brand and the artist’s trademark heritage since her art works belong to Mexico and are managed by the National Bank of Mexico.