Guide
Influencer Marketing Basics
Both
A creator's unauthorized use of a brand's name or logo is generally lawful when it genuinely identifies or reviews the brand's own products — this is called referential use, protected under Danish trademark law's § 10. It becomes infringement when the use creates confusion about a partnership that doesn't exist, or unfairly exploits a well-known mark's reputation. The fastest real tool for a brand is usually the platform's own reporting flow, not a lawsuit.
Unauthorized use is when a creator names, shows or otherwise uses a brand's name, logo or other mark in their own content — in a video title, a thumbnail, a bio, a hashtag or a handle — with no agreement with the brand at all. That's a different situation from three closely related topics the Academy already covers, and it's worth keeping them separate, because each triggers its own rule set:
This article is about a fourth situation: a creator using the brand's own name or logo, with no commercial relationship to the brand at all — typically in an unboxing, a review, a reaction video or fan content.
A registered trademark gives its owner an exclusive right under § 4 of the Danish Trademarks Act (varemærkeloven). Without consent, a third party cannot make commercial use of a sign if:
| Situation (§ 4(2)) | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Identical sign, identical goods/services | No further assessment needed — automatic infringement |
| Identical or similar sign, identical or similar goods | There must be a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public |
| Well-known trademarks | The use must cause "unfair advantage to be taken of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark" — this applies even without any likelihood of confusion, and even for entirely unrelated goods or services |
§ 4(3) specifies that the exclusive right covers, among other things, use of the sign on goods, in advertising, as a business name, and in comparative advertising that breaches Danish marketing law. A creator's use of a logo in a video or a thumbnail is "commercial use" in the law's sense as soon as the content sits in a commercial context — which most monetized or sponsored creator posts do.
§ 10(1)(3) of varemærkeloven expressly gives a third party the right to use a trademark to "identify or refer to goods or services as belonging to the proprietor of that trademark, in particular where the use of the trademark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts." That's the provision that makes it lawful for a creator to name and show a product to genuinely review or discuss it.
The exception is itself conditional: § 10(2) requires that the use be "in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters." The provision implements Article 14 of the EU Trademark Directive (EU) 2015/2436, which the CJEU clarified in two January 2024 rulings:
Applied to a creator's situation: naming and showing a product to review it is typically necessary and honest. Using a brand's logo as a creator's own permanent channel branding, or to imply a partnership that doesn't exist, is neither necessary to review the product nor in line with honest practices.
| Situation | Assessment | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A genuine unboxing or review naming and showing the product, with no claim of a partnership | Protected referential use | Necessary to identify what's being reviewed; no confusion about commercial origin |
| Video title or caption claims "official partner" or "sponsored by [brand]" when it isn't true | Infringement — and misleading marketing | Creates confusion about a commercial relationship that doesn't exist |
| The brand's logo used as a permanent part of the creator's own channel branding (banner, profile picture, intro) | Likely infringement | Goes beyond identifying a specific product — implies an ongoing, general affiliation instead |
| A well-known brand's name used in a clickbait title ("EXPOSING [Brand]'s SECRET FORMULA") with no real confusion risk | Can still be infringement | The well-known-mark rule doesn't require confusion — only unfair advantage taken of the mark's distinctive character or repute |
| The brand's name used in the creator's own domain name or handle (e.g. "brandname-reviews") | Likely infringement | Goes beyond referring to a product in content — uses the name as a sign in its own right |
If a case reaches the courts, §§ 43–44 of varemærkeloven let a court order an injunction against the continued infringement, order corrective measures against the infringing material (for example recall or destruction, normally at the infringer's expense), and order that the judgment be published in whole or in part, at the infringer's expense. These measures don't affect a separate damages claim the injured party can bring alongside them. In practice, the court route is slower and more expensive than a platform report, which is why most cases settle before they get that far.
Then this isn't a trademark question at all — it's a contract question. If the brand itself has given the creator permission to use its logo and name, the boundaries of that use are something the contract should address explicitly, not something to work out from trademark law after the fact. See what to put in an influencer contract for how usage rights and brand-guideline terms belong in the agreement itself — trademark law is what's left over for the cases where there's no relationship at all.
The figures and sequence below are invented for illustration and are not a real Make Influence customer case.
A Danish sportswear brand with a registered EU trademark discovers that a creator with 150,000 followers has, over three months, used its logo prominently in the thumbnails of 20 videos captioned "official partner" — despite no agreement ever having been made. The brand documents all 20 posts with dated screenshots and URLs, and files a single report through Meta's Brand Rights Protection citing its registration number. Within the timeframe Meta itself states as typical (roughly a day), 15 of the 20 posts are removed or corrected. The remaining five sit in a Stories archive the reporting tool doesn't reach, and require a direct message to the creator instead — resolved within a week, without the case ever needing a lawyer or a §§ 43–44 court claim.
In our view, the cleanest fix for most of what this article covers is avoiding the question in the first place: a contract's usage-rights and brand-guidelines section should say explicitly what a paid or affiliated creator may and may not do with the brand's logo and name — see what to put in an influencer contract. Trademark law, as described in this article, is what's left over once there's no agreement to lean on — and that's exactly why it's rarely the fastest route to a resolution.
No, generally not. Naming and showing a product to genuinely review it is protected referential use under § 10 of varemærkeloven, as long as the use is necessary to identify the product and follows honest commercial practices.
Often yes, if the logo genuinely just identifies the product being discussed. It becomes a problem when the logo is used to imply a partnership that doesn't exist, or as a permanent part of the creator's own branding.
Brand bidding restrictions are a private, contractual ban in an affiliate program's own terms against bidding on the brand's name as a keyword — Google itself doesn't restrict that. This article is about statutory trademark law, which applies regardless of any contract. See brand bidding restrictions in affiliate programs.
Comparative advertising (markedsføringsloven § 21) applies when a creator names or implies a competitor of the brand paying for the content. This article covers the opposite case: a creator using the brand's own mark with no agreement. See comparative advertising for influencers in Denmark.
No. A negative but honest, non-misleading review is protected speech and referential use — disliking the tone isn't itself a trademark question.
Then it isn't a trademark question, it's a contract question — see the section above and what to put in an influencer contract.
Yes. § 4(2)'s rule on well-known trademarks doesn't require a likelihood of confusion — only that the use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the mark's distinctive character or repute.
Per Meta's own Business Help Center, a complete and valid report is typically reviewed within a day. The program requires a registered trademark and a Business Manager account.
That's the mirror-image case of this article — a competitor using your influencer's content, rather than a creator using your brand's mark. See can a competitor legally reuse your influencer's content in their own ads for who actually has standing to act on that.
Make Influence
Find creators with real audience data, run collaborations in one place, and see clicks and sales per creator while the campaign is live.
Book a demoCreate accountMake Influence
Apply to campaigns from brands that are actively looking, follow your own clicks and sales, and get paid without chasing invoices.
Create creator profileMore creator guidesMake Influence
Briefs, agreed terms, tracking links and results sit together — so brands and creators see the same numbers.
See how it worksBrowse the Academy
