{"id":167281,"date":"2025-08-22T19:45:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T19:45:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/167281\/"},"modified":"2025-08-22T19:45:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-22T19:45:14","slug":"who-owns-frida-kahlos-legacy-the-dispute-over-her-trademark-could-impact-other-artists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/167281\/","title":{"rendered":"Who owns Frida Kahlo’s legacy? The dispute over her trademark could impact other artists."},"content":{"rendered":"

Many Frida Kahlo<\/a> fans who want to honor the artist, drawn by her unbreakable spirit and her unique way to portray her pain<\/a> on the canvas, visit exhibitions of her work or purchase posters and other items featuring her art. But in doing so, they may not be respecting her legacy or wishes, her relatives say.<\/p>\n

A legal dispute over how her trademarks can be used<\/a> is before a Florida appeals court this summer and could set precedents that affect other artists.<\/p>\n

On one side of the dispute, which has been going on for years, are relatives of the famous Mexican artist; on the other is the U.S.-based Frida Kahlo Corporation (KFC), <\/a>which has long owned the trademark rights for certain Kahlo-themed products sold in the United States.<\/p>\n

In the middle is the public, said William Scott Goldman, a lawyer specializing in branding, “the people interested<\/a> in seeing an exhibition or owning pieces that reference an artist who has been beloved by generations.” <\/p>\n

These legal disputes create confusion and can pose a challenge to consumers, Goldman said, as people may have purchased a product thinking it represented the artist’s vision accurately but are then faced with doubts about whether that’s the case. <\/p>\n

The origin of the disagreement<\/p>\n

The dispute has been dragging on since 2018. That year, Kahlo\u2019s grandniece, Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo \u2014 who was granted power of attorney over the late artist’s property rights in 2003 \u2014 complained<\/a> that FKC had granted Mattel the rights to make a Frida-inspired Barbie.<\/a><\/p>\n

Romeo Pinedo argued that Kahlo would not have wanted to be represented with a doll that conceals her iconic unibrow. Mattel argued that it did obtain permission to produce the doll through the FKC and that it worked with them legally during development.<\/p>\n

In the end, as a result of the lawsuit, the \u201cFrida Barbie\u201d was not sold<\/a> in Mexico, although it was sold in other countries. Romeo Pinedo then attempted to terminate the 2005 contract that had initially allowed FKC to market some of its products in the United States, such as T-shirts, cellphone cases and tequila<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"FridaMara De Anda Romeo and Mara Romeo Kahlo during a 2005 Frida Kahlo Tequila Launch.Amy Tierney \/ WireImage \/ Getty Images file<\/p>\n

But the corporation, which insists it has the rights to market merchandise related to the artist in the <\/strong>U.S., has continued to come up with more products and events, including an immersive exhibition<\/a> featuring photographs of the artist and some of her creations, which was to include a gift shop featuring Kahlo-inspired items.<\/p>\n

Romeo Pinedo attempted to stop the exhibition \u2014 which was scheduled to be held in cities like Miami \u2014 by submitting in 2022 a letter of withdrawal in which she said the uses of Kahlo\u2019s image should be determined by her family.<\/p>\n

Frida Kahlo Corp. sued, alleging that the family is interfering with its business activities, according to legal documents seen by Noticias Telemundo. <\/p>\n

\u201cAs the plaintiffs are the ones who obtained the copyright licenses to use Frida Kahlo\u2019s images in the exhibit, this company asserts that the defendants do not have the right to publicity<\/a> of Kahlo\u2019s name or image in the U.S.,\u201d the corporation states in one of the related documents.<\/p>\n

The Florida appeals court must now determine whether the case brought by FKC can proceed, taking into account that Romeo Pinedo is a Mexican citizen and therefore not necessarily subject to U.S. jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Who are the \u2018legitimate owners\u2019?<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the heart of the dispute is who the true or legitimate owners of the Frida Kahlo trademark are worldwide,\u201d Joanna Andrade Lehmann, a senior attorney at EPGD Law representing Romeo Pinedo in the case, told Noticias Telemundo.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe family maintains that if you\u2019re going to commercialize Frida Kahlo\u2019s image, it has to be in line with what she stood for and the values \u200b\u200bshe defended,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

“In my opinion, this will mark a turning point not only for our client, but for other artists or descendants of artists who are in similar situations,\u201d the attorney said.<\/p>\n

\""Barbie'sThe ‘Inspiring Women Series’ Barbie Signature Doll of Frida at a 2019 exhibit in Paris, France. As a result of a lawsuit by her descendants, the \u201cFrida Barbie\u201d was not sold in Mexico. Kristy Sparow \/ Getty Images file<\/p>\n

She said that if the Florida court decides it can act on jurisdiction, and possibly rule against Romeo Pinedo, then it will be \u201ca precautionary measure for others\u201d outside the U.S. that their trademark could be subject to the preferences of an American company.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have to take this as a precautionary measure and be more careful when doing business in the United States because, well, they may be submitting to U.S. jurisdiction without knowing it,\u201d said Andrade Lehmann.<\/p>\n

Noticias Telemundo attempted to contact the law firms representing Frida Kahlo Corp. but received no response. However, in a May hearing, the company\u2019s legal team argued that the Florida appeals court should be able to rule on the situation because the withdrawal letter sent in 2022 was received on U.S. soil.<\/p>\n

For Goldman, the attorney who’s an expert in branding, the situation is interesting because it raises a question: Today, when so many products from or related to artists are commercialized <\/a> and many companies sell items that are not necessarily authorized by those artists or their families, what should be done?<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like the debate about art versus commerce or the market, about the tensions that can exist between the advertising and intellectual property interests of corporations versus what certain individuals desire,\u201d Goldman said. <\/p>\n

\u201cAnd if related trademarks are being challenged, it becomes even more complicated,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Because the normal purpose of a trademark is \u201cto serve as a mark of quality and ensure that it is not diluted,\u201d said Goldman, if there are disputes over which mark should be used, counterfeit products may proliferate.<\/a><\/p>\n

For now, the issue of who owns the rights to Kahlo\u2019s legacy remains, pending a decision by the appeals court on whether FKC\u2019s lawsuit can proceed, even though Kahlo’s grandniece is not in the U.S. as a subject of its laws.<\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s hope there\u2019s no jurisdiction, but if there is, it\u2019s something that will have to be taken into account\u201d for other international artists who want to market products or their image in the United States, Andrade Lehmann, the attorney representing Romeo Pinedo, said. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt would become possible for a court in the United States to decide who owns the trademark,\u201d she said. And \u201cnot all artists or artists\u2019 heirs can afford to bear the costs of the local legal system\u201d enough to fight the situation like Romeo Pinedo, she pointed out.<\/p>\n

There is no deadline for a ruling, which the attorney said could result in the entire case being dismissed or in additional hearings being requested to discuss other possible outcomes.<\/p>\n

An earlier version of this story was first published in Noticias Telemundo.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Many Frida Kahlo fans who want to honor the artist, drawn by her unbreakable spirit and her unique…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":167282,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[648,1032,1033,171,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-167281","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-arts-and-design","8":"tag-arts","9":"tag-arts-and-design","10":"tag-design","11":"tag-entertainment","12":"tag-united-states","13":"tag-unitedstates","14":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115074139909599333","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167281\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/167282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}