Yoko Ono v. “John Lemon”: Posthumous Celebrity Trademark Rights and the Polish Soda Case

In 2017, Yoko Ono successfully pressured the Polish beverage start-up Mr Lemonade Alternative Drinks to rebrand its lemonade product from “John Lemon” to “On Lemon” — ending a trademark dispute that became one of the most-followed posthumous celebrity rights cases of the year. The case combined several legal angles: trademark allusion (the name “John Lemon” plus marketing materials referencing “let it be” and John Lennon’s distinctive round glasses), posthumous personality rights (Lennon died in 1980 but his image and name remain protected), and the asymmetric leverage of estate-controlled celebrity brands against small businesses.

This guide analyses the case and applies the framework comparatively under Italian law. For the broader copyright framework, see our master pillar guide to copyright law in Italy and Europe. For the right to image and posthumous protection, see our right to image guide.

The case: facts and outcome

Mr Lemonade Alternative Drinks, a Polish family business launched around 2012, developed a craft lemonade product branded “John Lemon“. Beyond the name’s obvious phonetic play on John Lennon, the product’s marketing materials included:

• References to “let it be” — the title of the 1970 Beatles album and song;
• Imagery featuring round glasses similar to those Lennon famously wore;
• General aesthetic and tone evoking the Beatles’ visual culture.

The product was distributed to bars and restaurants across the UK and 13 other European countries through local distributors including Mr Lemonade Alternative Drinks in Bow, London. The company’s founders, including Karol Chamera, presented the company as a small startup operation.

In 2017, Yoko Ono’s legal team — led by Dutch law firm Hoyng Rokh Monegier — initiated proceedings at The Hague (Netherlands), seeking damages of approximately €5,000 per day plus €500 per bottle sold. The legal claim asserted trademark infringement of John Lennon’s name and violation of his personal rights.

The case resolved through settlement rather than full litigation. Mr Lemonade Alternative Drinks agreed to:

• Rename the product to “On Lemon”;
• Sell off remaining “John Lemon” stocks by the end of October 2017;
• Stop using the Lennon-associated marketing elements.

Chamera publicly acknowledged the asymmetric leverage: “All of us involved with this product are startups and we couldn’t take on someone who is worth many, many millions.” The Ono Lennon legal team characterised the original branding as “abusing and misusing the legacy of John Lennon to sell their soda”.

The legal angles

The case engaged three overlapping legal frameworks:

• Trademark protection: Lennon’s name is protected by registered trademarks held by the Lennon estate (Apple Corps Ltd. and related entities). The phonetic play “John Lemon” risked trademark dilution and consumer confusion;
• Posthumous personality rights: even decades after Lennon’s death (1980), the use of his identity in commercial promotion engages personality rights enforceable by his estate;
• Unfair competition / parasitic association: marketing materials drawing on Beatles legacy elements (“let it be”, round glasses) created commercial value through unauthorised association.

Trademark allusion and dilution

Under EU trademark law (Regulation 2017/1001 on EU trademarks) and Italian Industrial Property Code (D.Lgs. 30/2005), registered trademarks are protected not only against direct copying but also against:

• Confusing similarity: signs that consumers might confuse with the original mark;
• Dilution by blurring: use that weakens the distinctive character of a famous mark even without confusion;
• Dilution by tarnishment: use that harms the reputation of the mark;
• Free-riding (taking unfair advantage): deliberately commercial association with a famous mark.

“John Lemon” arguably engaged all of these — particularly free-riding, where the phonetic play deliberately leveraged the Beatles cultural cachet for commercial benefit in the same broad consumer goods space.

Posthumous personality rights

Across EU jurisdictions, personality rights (including image, name, and identity) extend beyond the death of the protected person. Different jurisdictions structure protection differently:

• Germany: postmortem personality rights for 10 years after death;
• France: heirs can enforce personality rights with no time limitation;
• Italy: heirs can enforce image and personality rights perpetually under Article 10 Civil Code and Articles 96-97 LDA framework;
• UK: no general right of publicity, but passing off and trademark protection apply;
• Netherlands (case jurisdiction): portrait right (portretrecht) provides robust posthumous protection.

For deceased celebrities with active estates (Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, John Lennon, Frank Sinatra, etc.), commercial use of their name, image, or distinctive features engages estate enforcement across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Italian framework comparative

Under Italian law, a “John Lemon”-equivalent case involving an Italian deceased celebrity (e.g., Lucio Battisti, Mia Martini, Pino Daniele) would engage:

• Article 10 Italian Civil Code: prohibition on unauthorised use of identifiable persons’ images for commercial purposes;
• Article 96-97 LDA: portrait right requiring consent for commercial reproduction, with limited exceptions for public role;
• Italian “evocative value” doctrine: established by Hepburn 2015, Lucio Dalla 1984, Totò 1997 — protects against unauthorised use that evokes a specific identifiable person even without direct image reproduction;
• Italian Industrial Property Code (D.Lgs. 30/2005): trademark protection where the celebrity’s name or distinctive features are registered as trademarks;
• Heirs’ perpetual enforcement: under Italian framework, heirs can enforce personality rights with no time limitation, parallel to moral rights.

The Italian “evocative value” doctrine is particularly relevant: a product called “John Limone” with round glasses and Beatles imagery would face Italian personality rights enforcement even if no direct image of Lennon were used — see our right to image guide for detailed analysis.

Lessons for startups and brand creators

The John Lemon case offers concrete lessons for entrepreneurs and brand creators:

• Cultural references are not free: clever wordplay on famous names creates legal exposure regardless of commercial scale or creative intent;
• Estate enforcement is well-funded: major celebrity estates have substantial budgets for enforcement and operate across multiple jurisdictions;
• EU cross-border enforcement is efficient: distribution across EU markets multiplies enforcement exposure rather than diluting it;
• Settlement is typically the rational outcome: for small businesses, defending posthumous celebrity trademark claims is rarely cost-effective. Rebranding (as Mr Lemonade did) is usually less expensive than litigation;
• Pre-launch trademark search is essential: a basic trademark clearance review would have identified the Lennon estate’s registrations before product launch;
• “Inspiration” defences fail: courts and trademark offices distinguish poorly between “inspiration” and “free-riding” when commercial value flows from celebrity association.

How DANDI supports clients

DANDI.media supports startups, brand creators, celebrity estates, and music industry clients on celebrity rights matters:

• Pre-launch trademark clearance and naming review;
• Brand naming strategy with celebrity rights risk assessment;
• Cease-and-desist response and settlement negotiation;
• Estate representation for posthumous celebrity rights enforcement;
• Italian personality rights enforcement against unauthorised commercial use;
• Cross-border EU coordination for celebrity brand protection.

For consultation, book directly with Avv. Claudia Roggero or Avv. Donato Di Pelino.

Related guides

Dandi Law Firm provides legal assistance in several Practice Areas. Check out our Services or contact Us!