Beyoncé Loses Again Blue Ivy Trademark Battle

Beyoncé has lost yet another round in the nasty legal battle over the Blue Ivy trademark after a judge shut down her attempt to block her ex-vice president from being deposed just days after the megastar gave birth to twins.

Court papers obtained by DailyMail.com state Jonathan Schwartz, the former executive vice president of the singer’s BGK Trademark Holdings, has been ordered to testify to determine whether or not the Grammy-winning star committed fraud.

In February, Schwartz filed a trademark application on behalf of the 35-year-old songstress to launch a series of products under her daughter’s name – which included everything from mobile devices, hair care, a clothing line, and even video games.

But the request was later challenged by the owner of an event-planning company of the same name who claims the singer has no intention of actually selling products, and instead wants to trademark the moniker ‘merely so that nobody else could.’

Veronica Morales, the owner of Blue Ivy, filed an opposition last month accusing the singer of fraudulently filing an application with the United States Trademark and Patent Office (USTPO).

Morales also filed a motion seeking early discovery of Schwartz after he was sentenced to prison in an unrelated case, arguing that his testimony is ‘crucial’ in determining whether Beyoncé had honest intentions.

The Lemonade singer previously tried to trademark Blue Ivy back in 2012, but was denied the rights since the company already owned the mark.

Earlier this month Beyoncé had fired back demanding Morales’s opposition be thrown out claiming that her company BGK (her initials) is wholly owned by her and she is the sole member.

Documents show the pop star argued the motion is unnecessary and a waste of her time and resources pointing out Morales failed to even consult with her beforehand, where they could have tried to handle the dispute without going to court.

The singer’s attorneys claim that had Morales reached out she would have learned Mr Schwartz no longer is employed by her company and therefore she has no obligation or ability to produce him for a deposition.

However, after a telephone conference between the two parties, a judge granted the motion for early discovery this week, ordering Schwartz to provide key information to the case.