header-logo header-logo

27 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

RiRi image was "passing off"

Court provides clarity over “image rights” as celebrity wins T-shirt battle

Celebrities cannot rely on “image rights” as no such right exists in English law, the Court of Appeal has held in a dispute between Topshop and Rihanna over t-shirts bearing her photograph.

Nevertheless, Umbrella singer Rihanna came out on top in a legal dispute with the fashion retailer over its use of her image without permission.

Lord Justice Kitchin and two Court of Appeal judges upheld the High Court’s finding that the use of a photograph of Rihanna on a T-shirt gave the impression that she had endorsed the product and therefore amounted to passing off, in Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands [2015] EWCA Civ 3.

The photograph was taken by an independent photographer who owned the copyright to the image and licensed the use of it to Topshop.

Topshop’s legal team argued that the public had no expectation that a piece of clothing decorated with an image had been authorised by the people in that image. Team Rihanna countered that the misrepresentation damaged her “goodwill”. The court granted an injunction against Topshop selling the T-shirts.

In its judgment, the court provides clarity on the existence of “image rights”.

Stephen Boyd, of Selborne Chambers, says: “Kitchin LJ, giving the lead judgment, reiterated the distinction between endorsement and merchandising and made clear that in English law there is no ‘image right’ or ‘character right’ which allows a celebrity to control the use of his or her name or image. Registered trade marks aside, no-one can claim monopoly rights in a word or a name. Accordingly, a celebrity seeking to control the use of his or her image must therefore rely upon some other cause of action such as breach of contract, breach of confidence, infringement of copyright or passing off.”

Kitchin LJ said passing off was about “goodwill”. This allegation did disclose a sustainable case in passing off. In substance, Rihanna alleged that she had suffered damage to the goodwill in her business as a result of the misrepresentation, implied in all the circumstances, that she had endorsed the T-shirt.”

Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll