On one side, a global pop powerhouse capable of filling stadiums. On the other, a young Lyon-based company that sends drones and ideas soaring through the sky. Between the two, a name: "Moon Music." The French company of the same name has decided to fight to the bitter end against Coldplay, accused of using this name for their latest album, despite a formal notice sent as early as 2023.
Initially, the story resembles that of two entrepreneurs building their project between classes and many sleepless nights. They registered the domain name moonmusic.fr in 2020, then filed the trademark "Moon Music" with the INPI (French National Institute of Industrial Property) in September 2022. A few months later, in January 2023, Coldplay announced that their tenth studio album would bear this title. For the small company, the blow was severe: they wrote to the band and Warner Music France requesting that the trademark be stopped, without receiving a response, and finally filed a lawsuit in June 2024.
The first round, however, did not go in the French company's favor. On January 27, 2025, the president of the Lyon judicial court dismissed Moon Music's case: according to the ruling, Coldplay used "Moon Music" as the title of an artistic work, and not "as a trademark." In other words, the judge determined that an album is first and foremost a creative work, not a label intended to distinguish services or products in a market—a legal distinction that changes everything.
When an album title clashes with trademark law
But the matter isn't closed. Moon Music is appealing, and the Lyon Court of Appeal is scheduled to examine the case at a hearing on April 1st, according to Antoine Guérinot, the company's lawyer, quoted by Radio France. Behind the semantic dispute lies a very real concern: how can they exist, commercially and in the media, when the same name starts to resonate everywhere, carried by a band whose fame overwhelms everything in its path?
Because Coldplay isn't just music; it's also an ecosystem: tours, merchandise, marketing campaigns, streaming platforms, and global distribution. And as soon as a name appears on posters, online stores, or in sponsored campaigns, the line between "artistic work" and "commercial use" can become a slippery slope. The reader senses it: this is often where intellectual property battles erupt, when a creation transforms into a de facto brand, even without explicitly stating it.
One question remains, almost a political one in the broadest sense: in a market dominated by cultural giants, what space is left for small organizations trying to protect their identity? The April hearing will determine whether the court upholds the strictly artistic interpretation of the title, or whether it opens the door to stronger protection of the name for the French company and, beyond that, sends a signal to all those who register a trademark hoping it won't be swallowed up by a larger entity.
