- Home page
- News
- Frida Kahlo’s Viva la Vida: a dispute arose about the registration of the Portoguese "Viva a vida"
Frida Kahlo’s Viva la Vida: a dispute arose about the registration of the Portoguese "Viva a vida"
22 April 2026
"Viva la Vida" holds a significant place in Frida Kahlo's artistic and cultural legacy. These words can be seen in one of her most famous still life paintings, Viva la Vida, which is frequently cited as her final piece. Inscribed directly onto a watermelon slice in the painting, the phrase has evolved beyond its literal meaning to serve as a final affirmation of vitality in the face of physical decline. It was allegedly added just a few days prior to her passing.
Given this, it is not surprising that the Frida Kahlo Corporation, which manages the commercial exploitation of the artist's legacy, has attempted to obtain trademark protection for the "Viva la Vida" sign. Therefore, it is especially significant that Lisboa Editora, S.A., a Portuguese publishing company, was involved in a dispute over the registration of a similar sign, "Viva a Vida."
- The court found it easy to identify the striking resemblance between the signs "Viva la Vida" and "Viva a Vida." It was determined that the minimal linguistic variation—basically replacing the Portuguese "a" with the Spanish article "la"—was insufficient to remove the marks' phonetic and conceptual proximity.
However, since the earlier mark, owned by the Frida Kahlo Corporation, covered a variety of goods, including Class 16 items like books, printed materials, and stationery, the crucial question was the relationship between the goods and services covered by the respective trademarks. In contrast, the contested mark was only registered for Class 41 services—that is, services pertaining to education, training, and cultural activities—after it was partially rejected.
The appellant contended that these goods and services had a complementary relationship, especially when it came to educational services and goods like books and instructional materials. Based on this, it argued that consumers would be more likely to become confused or, at the very least, associate the two marks.
However, the court dismissed this claim. It emphasized that objective standards, such as their nature, purpose, mode of use, distribution channels, and target market, must be used when comparing goods and services. Using these standards, the court came to the following conclusion: - While the services in question include the provision of educational activities, the goods in question—books, stationery, etc.—are tangible products;
- Their main functions are different, with the latter being the dissemination of knowledge and the former being instruments for writing or reading;
- The pertinent publics are not always the same; and
- Overlapping distribution channels are not evident.
The court confirmed the mark's partial registration on the grounds that the goods and services were not sufficiently similar to create a possibility of confusion.
Read all the details at this link.
