Trying to understand Nicola Peltz Beckham

[Anonymous]

I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all celebs have their names (and probably kids names) trademarked. It it to protect them.

I don't know enough about branding or contracts related to name trademarks to have any idea what really happened but given how overdramatized and exaggerated the 'first dance' and ' 11th hour wedding dress' stories are I don't doubt this is more of the same.

I am sure David and Victoria were controlling - they are major public figures. But he didn't exactly strike out on his own. He just jumped into a different rich and famous family with controlling people who have a well documented history of treating others poorly.

Yes, when they were children. Brooklyn wasn’t a child when he married so there was no need to continue to own the trademark for his name.

As many others have said, he’s never really done anything. All of his attempts have petered out.

It sounds like from the article, it wasn't specifically about who owned the trademark. It was about contracts and Brooklyn refused to sign on. Sounds like he already had control. According to the article, the trademark was for ten years and expires in Dec 2026.

[Anonymous]

A wedding guest on record saying the dance thing is true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15480569/Brooklyn-Beckham-Nicola-Peltz-wedding-guest-Victoria-DID-dance-inappropriately.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

Obviously Brooklyn would choose his wife. Victoria gravely miscalculated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

Obviously Brooklyn would choose his wife. Victoria gravely miscalculated.

Victoria is just your typical DCUM mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A wedding guest on record saying the dance thing is true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15480569/Brooklyn-Beckham-Nicola-Peltz-wedding-guest-Victoria-DID-dance-inappropriately.html

But it wasn't the first dance. Is Brooklyn lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

Obviously Brooklyn would choose his wife. Victoria gravely miscalculated.

Victoria is just your typical DCUM mother.

Yes, Posh Spice, she's just like us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

Obviously Brooklyn would choose his wife. Victoria gravely miscalculated.

Victoria is just your typical DCUM mother.

Yes, Posh Spice, she's just like us!

My kids will also have to pry their trademarked names out of my dead, cold hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

I don't see any similarities. Kris had nothing of her own before she started making money through her kids. The Beckhams built an empire on their own and probably want to protect it- in part for their kids inheritance, including Brooklyn. Brooklyn and Nicola have no clue what goes into building a business.

Btw the Peltz are hard core MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all celebs have their names (and probably kids names) trademarked. It it to protect them.

I don't know enough about branding or contracts related to name trademarks to have any idea what really happened but given how overdramatized and exaggerated the 'first dance' and ' 11th hour wedding dress' stories are I don't doubt this is more of the same.

I am sure David and Victoria were controlling - they are major public figures. But he didn't exactly strike out on his own. He just jumped into a different rich and famous family with controlling people who have a well documented history of treating others poorly.

Yes, when they were children. Brooklyn wasn’t a child when he married so there was no need to continue to own the trademark for his name.

As many others have said, he’s never really done anything. All of his attempts have petered out.

It sounds like from the article, it wasn't specifically about who owned the trademark. It was about contracts and Brooklyn refused to sign on. Sounds like he already had control. According to the article, the trademark was for ten years and expires in Dec 2026.

Oh even better. He doesn’t need to be part of the family contracts if he doesn’t want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

I don't see any similarities. Kris had nothing of her own before she started making money through her kids. The Beckhams built an empire on their own and probably want to protect it- in part for their kids inheritance, including Brooklyn. Brooklyn and Nicola have no clue what goes into building a business.

Btw the Peltz are hard core MAGA.

Who cares? Does that mean the Beckhams should hold the trademark and family contract over his head? He doesn't want to be part of it. Thats what happens when your kid grow up and decide to do other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Page Six source has it exactly right:

Another insider said that “two things can be true,” pointing out the situation has become intolerable because Peltz can be “crazy” and wants her own way, while Victoria can be “dreadful” — and Brooklyn was stuck in the middle.

Thats what it comes down to most of the time. If neither wants to be cordial then Brooklyn had to choose.

Obviously Brooklyn would choose his wife. Victoria gravely miscalculated.

Victoria is just your typical DCUM mother.

Yes, Posh Spice, she's just like us!

My kids will also have to pry their trademarked names out of my dead, cold hands.

The name has to be worth something to even want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

I don't see any similarities. Kris had nothing of her own before she started making money through her kids. The Beckhams built an empire on their own and probably want to protect it- in part for their kids inheritance, including Brooklyn. Brooklyn and Nicola have no clue what goes into building a business.

Btw the Peltz are hard core MAGA.

Who cares? Does that mean the Beckhams should hold the trademark and family contract over his head? He doesn't want to be part of it. Thats what happens when your kid grow up and decide to do other things.

But he wants to piggyback on the success they created with the family name for himself. Nobody is stopping him from "deciding to do other things" but destroy the family name can't be one of them. He can go play with the Peltz name and money all he wants, if his in-laws would allow it. That probably won't last very long either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all celebs have their names (and probably kids names) trademarked. It it to protect them.

I don't know enough about branding or contracts related to name trademarks to have any idea what really happened but given how overdramatized and exaggerated the 'first dance' and ' 11th hour wedding dress' stories are I don't doubt this is more of the same.

I am sure David and Victoria were controlling - they are major public figures. But he didn't exactly strike out on his own. He just jumped into a different rich and famous family with controlling people who have a well documented history of treating others poorly.

Yes, when they were children. Brooklyn wasn’t a child when he married so there was no need to continue to own the trademark for his name.

As many others have said, he’s never really done anything. All of his attempts have petered out.

It sounds like from the article, it wasn't specifically about who owned the trademark. It was about contracts and Brooklyn refused to sign on. Sounds like he already had control. According to the article, the trademark was for ten years and expires in Dec 2026.

Oh even better. He doesn’t need to be part of the family contracts if he doesn’t want to.

No he doesn't and he chose not to. This according to Brooklyn upset D and V as it would have been a better, more lucrative contract if all the kids signed on. Which is fine. They can be disappointed. But to still be moaning about it...let it go. He is 27. He has been an adult for 9 years. Time to grow up.